Some  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism, 

1840-1861 


By 

ROBERT  ROYAL  RUSSEL 

M.  A.,  University  of  Kansas,  1915 


THESIS 

SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  IN  HISTORY 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS,  1922 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


\ 


https://archive.org/details/someeconomicaspeOOruss 


/ 3 Ja i 3 iAP 


. 


. 


Some  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism, 

1840-1861 


By 

ROBERT  ROYAL  RUSSEL 

M.  A.,  University  of  Kansas,  1915 


THESIS 

SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  IN  HISTORY 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS,  1922 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS 


■ 


:M  f|- 


TABLE  OF  COiTTEETS 


Chapter  Page 

Preface  - --  --  --  --  --  — - — — — - - - — _ Y 

Introduction:  The  Bases  of  Southern  Sectionalism  - — - - vi 

I Agitation  in  Favor  of  Direct  Trade  with  Europe,  1837-1839  - 1 

II  Agitation  in  Favor  of  the  Establishment  of  Cotton  Manufact- 
ures, 1840-1852  — - - - — - --  22 

III  The  Relation  of  Economic  Discontent  to  the  Southern  Move- 
ment, to  1852  — _ — — _ _ 57 

IV  Discussion  of  Plans  for  Establishing  Direct  Trade  with 

Europe,  1847-1860  — - — - — 87 

7 The  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  1852-1859  - 120 

VI  Attitude  of  the  Southern  People  toward  Protective  Tariffs 
and  State  and  Local  Measures  to  Encourage  Industry, 

1840-1860-  - --  --  --  - --  --  — ____  _ __  154 

“ II  j-ne  Relation  of  — ccnomic  Discontent  to  the  Disunion  Move— 


VIII 


IS 


X 


ment , 1852-1860-  - — — - — — - — _____  ]_Q7 

factors  which  Tended  to  Allay  Economic  Discontent  in  the 

South,  1850-1860  - - - — _ _ 208 

evidences  ox  economic  Motives  for  Southern  Sectionalism  dur- 
ing the  Secession  of  the  Cotton  States,  1860-1861  — - - 244 
Evidences  of  Economic  Motives  for  Southern  Sectionalism  in 
the  Formulation  of  the  Early  Economic  Policies  of  the 
Confederacy  and  in  the  Decision  of  the  Border  Slave  States-270 


-RRFACE 


'■’lle  ail3J'eot  cf  «.ia  thesis  was  suggested  to  me  while  I was  preparing  a 
■taster’s  thesis  on  the  subject,  Early  Projects  for  a Railroad  to  tie  Pacific,  under 
the  direction  of  Professor  F.  H.  Rodder,  of  the  University  of  Innsas.  The  prepara- 
tion of  the  study  was  begun,  1916,  -under  the  supervision  of  Professors  3.  B.  Oreene 
and  A.  0.  Cole  and  completed  under  the  surervision  of  Professor  I.  0.  Pease,  of  the 
University  of  Illinois.  I an  indebted  to  each  of  these  men  for  very  valuable  crit- 
icisms and  suggestions.  I alone  am  responsible  for  all  errors  of  fact  and  all  er- 
rone  on  s conclusions. 

The  unity  of  the  work  has  suffered  somewhat  from  frequent  interruptions 
in  its  preparation.  The  lack  of  time  has  prevented  the  utilisation  of  much  avail- 
;P-per,  paupnlet,  -aid  manuscript  material  of  considerable  value.  The  works 
naued  In  the  bibliography  and  footnotes  were  found,  with  a few  exceptions,  in  the 
ibrary  of  the  University  of  Illinois.,  or  ths  .library  of  Congress. 

In  view  of  ths  fact  that  this  thesis  deals  with  matters  which  even  today, 
in  a measure,  arouse  tha  passions  of  men,  a statement  of  the  author's  antecedents 
may  not  be  irrelevant.  I am  a Kansan  by  birth  end  continued  residence.  Hy  father 
■■as  bom  in  Kentucky;  one  of  his  parents  had  e®e  from  Pennsylvania,  the  other  from 
ennessee.  They  migrated  to  Illinois  and  tttmee  to  Kansas  Shortly  after  the  Civil 
ar,  whale  my  father  was  a lad.  %■  mother’s  parents,  who  seem  to  have  sympathized 
■■ith  the  north,  brought  her  virile  still  a child  to  Kansas  London,  England. 


Robert  R»  Russel* 


. 

, 


Introducti^:  The  Bases  of_  Southern  Sectionalism. 


The  most  significant  fact  of  American  history  from  about  1820  to  1875,  at 
least,  was  sectionalism.  The  section  which  was  at  all  timos  most  clearly  de- 
fined  mas  the  South . The  tens  .South,  however,  did  not  have  the  seme  connotation 
at  all  timee  and  to  all  men.  Until  about  184?  the  term  Southwest  was  frequently 
employed,  especially  in  the  East,  to  designate  a vast  region  including  all  the 
then  settled  portions  of  the  Mississippi  valley.  The  word  South  was,  prior  to 
that  date,  more  commonly  applied  only  to  the  South  Atlantic  states.  The  states 
of  the  lower  Mississippi  valley  were  gradually  brought  under  the  term  as  slave- 
holding was  more  and  more  made  to  stand  out  as  the  chief  eharacterietic  of  the 
section,  and  as  economic  end  social  organization  and  conditions  generally  in  the 
states  mentioned  approximated  those  in  the  old  South  and  differentiated  from 

those  of  the  states  of  the  upper  part  of  the  valley.  For  Southern  sectionalism 
had  bases  in  several  distinctive  features. 


Foremost  was  the  existence  of  slavery.  For  reasons,  chiefly  geographical, 
slavery  had  never  flourished  in  colonial  days  above  Mason  and  Dixon's  Line  as  it 
bed  below  it;  and  the  institution  had  been  abolished  there  during  or  shortly 
after  the  Revolutionary  War.  Into  the  Old  Northwest,  also,  slavery  had  not  been 
extended;  while  into  Kentucky  and  Missouri  and  the  region  to  the  south,  it  had 
Eone,  in  the  same  form  as  in  the  South  Atlantic  states.  To  be  sure,  the  slave 
population  was  not  evenly  distributed  throughout  tbs  South.  The  vast  majority 
Of  the  slaves  were  to  be  found  in  the  eo-oalled  black  belts,  which  corresponded 
roughly  to  the  areas  best  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of  cotton,  tobaoco,  sugar 
cans,  rice,  and  hemp-there  the  plantation  prevailed  over  the  farm-and  the  con- 
centration became  mere  pronounced  as  the  Civil  War  approached.  Outside  the  black 
belts  the  south  was  upon  an  essentially  free-labor  basis,  and  farming  predomina- 
ted over  planting.  But  the  eleveh.ldi„g  planters  „„  the  ^ 

South  society;  the  peopl6  of  the  fMming  districtg  had  ^ 

- th6y  f0U"d  "■*»*«  the^W'8  Products  chiefly  in  the 


■ 


•: 

■ 


i 


» 


vii 


regions.  The  institution  of  slavery  came  to  be  regarded  as  absolutely  essential 
to  Southern  prosperity.  Consequently  Southern  men  defended  it  as  right,  shaped 
their  political  policies  to  protect  it  and  secure  its  extension,  and  demanded 
that  attacks  upon  it  cease. 

There  was  basis  for  sectionalism,  also,  in  divergent  economic  interests  and 
conditions.  To  what  extent  the  divergence  was  due  to  geography,  to  what  extent 
due  to  other  factors,  including  social  organization,  it  is  not  necessary  here  to 
inquire.  The  planting  states,  however,  were  engaged  chiefly  in  the  production  of 
a few  great  staples,  cotton,  tobacco,  and  sugar,  not  produced  in  other  states  of 
the  Union.  Of  these  staples  only  a small  proportion  was  consumed  at  home;  much 
the  greater  part  was  exported  either  to  the  North  or  to  Europe.  The  portion  ex- 
ported abroad  constituted  considerably  more  than  half  the  nation* s total  exports. 
Manufacturing  and  mining  had  made,  and  were  making  during  the  period  under  sur- 
vey, little  progress  in  the  South  compared  with  the  same  industries  in  other 
sections.  The  exports  of  the  South  were  exchanged  in  part  for  agricultural  pro- 
ducts of  the  West  but  chiefly  for  manufactured  goods  of  the  East  or  Europe.  The 
ocean  commerce  of  the  South,  whether  coast-wise  or  foreign,  was  carried  almost 
altogether  in  Northern  or  European  vessels;  foreign  goods  for  Southern  consumption 
J caDie  largely  by  way  of  Northern  ports.  Only  a small  percentage  of  the  Southern 
population  was  urban;  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  section  were  few  and  small  com- 
pared with  those  of  the  East  or  even  those  of  the  growing  Northwest.  The  banking 
capital  of  the  country  was  largely  concentrated  in  the  East.  The  South  was  not 
financially  independent.  The  divergent  eoonomic  interests  occasioned  advocacy  of 
different  policies,  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  government,  as  regards  tariff, 
taxation,  navigation  laws,  and  the  amount  and  objects  of  government  expenditures. 
The  disparity  of  the  sections  in  industry  and  commerce  was  to  many  Southerners  an 
evidence  of  lack  of  prosperity  in  the  South  commensurate  with  that  of  the  North 
and  consequently,  was  a cause  of  dissatisfaction,  and  was  galling  to  Southern 


' 


'(•  ■ • 1 


’ • ' : 

► v 


■ 


. 


• ■>  v -*> 


* 

. 

. 


. 


■ 


• 

viii 


pride.  The  causes  of  Southern  "decline”  were  sought  for;  it  was  variously  attri- 
buted to  geography  and  climate,  qualities  of  the  people,  misdirection  of  private 
enterprise,  mistaken  policies  of  the  state  and  local  governments,  and  the  unequal 
operation  of  the  Federal  government,  but  not,  generally,  to  slavery.  Remedies 
were  proposed,  corresponding  roughly  to  the  causes,  as  analyzed. 

Other  bases  for  sectionalism  were  of  much  less  importance.  Because  of  early  j 
conditions  of  settlement,  and,  especially,  because  later  immigration  was  mostly 
into  the  non-slaveholding  states,  there  were  slight  differences  in  the  racial 
types  of  the  sections.  The  sparsity  of  population  and  the  social  organization 
in  the  South  were  accountable  for  backwardness  in  general  education  and  cultural 
development.  Sarly  conditions  of  settlement,  agricultural  pursuits,  slavery  and 
the  plantation  system,  and  sparsity  of  population  largely  explain  the  variation 
from  other  sections  in  political  ideals  and  methods. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  attempt  to  discover  to  what  extent 
Southern  sectionalism  had  its  basis  in  divergent  economic  interests  and  condi- 
tions. The  study  is  primarily  a study  of  public  opinion.  It  will  require  an 
examination  of  the  opinions  of  Southern  men  as  to  the  divergence  of  economic  in- 
terests and  the  extent  of  the  disparity  of  economic  development  in  the  sections, 
the  causes  of  suoh  disparity,  and  the  proper  remedies  therefor.  Actual  economic 
conditions  and  changes  will  be  described  and  explained  only  in  so  far  as  such  de- 
scription and  explanation  are  essential  to  an  understanding  of  Southern  public 
opinion.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that  incidentally  some  additional  light  may  be 
thrown  upon  the  economic  status,  of  the  ante-bellum  South,  and  some  conclusions 
may  be  drawn  as  to  the  justification  for  Southern  discontent.  Frequent  references 
will  of  necessity  be  made  to  the  sectional  quarrel  over  slavery;  and  the  attempt 
will  be  made  to  maintain  proper  proportion  between  the  minor  aspects  of  sectional- 
ism herein  treated  and  the  major  issue  of  the  sectional  struggle. 

In  seeking  to  analyze  Southern  opinion  relative  to  the  matters  mentioned 


» 

■ 


• 

- 

. 

“ 


* 


* 


' 

. 

. 

■ 

. 

. 

ix 


above,  several  movements  in  behalf  of  the  economic  regeneration  of  the  South  will 
be  described,  and  the  accompanying  discussion  examined.  Evidence  of  economic  dis- 
content can  be  found  in  the  discussion  of  some  of  the  outstanding  political  ques- 
tions of  the  day;  and  euch  bodies  of  discussion  will,  therefore,  be  analyzed.  In 
the  years  1837-1839  a number  of  direct  trade  conventions  held  in  the  South  Atlan- 
tic states  gave  earnest  consideration  to  direct  trade  with  Europe  as  a remedy  for 
Southern  decline.  During  the  1840's,  especially  the  latter  half  of  the  decade, 
there  was  much  discussion  of  the  practicability  and  desirability  of  developing 
manufactures  in  the  South,  especially  cotton  manufactures.  The  political  crisis 
of  the  years  1847-1852  furnished  the  occasion  for  considerable  consideration  of 
the  economic  relations  of  the  sections.  During  the  l850’s  direct  trade  with  Eu- 
rope wee  almost  constantly  a subject  before  the  public.  Between  1852  and  1859 
a series  of  Southern  commercial  conventions  met  in  various  cities  of  the  South, 
whose  original  object  was  to  deviee  measures  for  effecting  the  economic  regenera- 
tion of  the  section.  The  tariff  question  was  not  dead  during  the  period  studied; 
and  during  the  1850-s  policies  of  state  and  local  protection  of  industry  were 
proposed  and  discussed.  The  agitation  of  the  late  fifties  in  behalf  of  secession, 
as  well  as  the  movement  for  the  revival  of  the  foreign  slave  trade,of  the  same 
period,  gave  evidence  of  discontent  with  the  economic  position  of  the  South. 

Finally  every  phase  of  Southern  sectionalism  was  brought  out  by  the  actual  disso- 
lution of  the  Union  end  the  necessity  of  inaugurating- Confederate  governmental 
policies.  Time  and  the  scope  of  this  wo  rip  have  not  permitted  adequate  considera- 
tion of  the  sectional  bearings  of  two  important  problems  of  the  ante-bellum  South, 
namely,  the  building  of  railroads,  especially  into  the  Northwest  and  to  the  Paci- 
fic, and  the  establishment  of  a satisfactory  banking  and  credit  system.1  It  is 
not  believed  that  the  omissions  will  vitiate  the  conclusions  reached  in  any  mater- 
ial degree.  The  period  covered_by_this.study_has.been_rather  arbitrarily  limited, 
not  included.  Early  Projects" for  nhp  *’!lllr0*d  Profcleia  ka8  been  prepared  but  is 

published  master' s ?hesii  of  t^  autho“  C Railr°^  *“  the  sub^  °f  - »»- 


' 


■ 


< 


. 


' , '♦  :>i 


■ 


. 


* 


i 


. i 


„ 

. 

. 


. 


T 

•A 


CHAPTER  I. 


Agitation  in  Favor  of  Direct  Trade  with  Europe.  1837-1839. 

In  colonial  days  the  exports  and  inports  of  the  Southern  colonies  com- 
pared very  favorably  in  amount  with  those  of  the  Northern;  but  shortly  after 
independence  from  Great  Britain  was  achieved,  it  became  apparent  that  the  im- 
porting business  of  the  nation  was  being  concentrated  in  Northern  ports.  As 
the  years  went  by  the  concentration  became  more  and  more  pronounced.  while 
the  exports  of  the  staple  producing  states  grew  at  a phenomenal  rate,  the  value 
of  the  imports  into  Southern  ports  remained  almost  stationary  or  grew  very 
slowly.  This  was  particularly  true  in  the  case  of  the  Atlantic  ports.  In  the 
case  of  New  Orleans,  for  long  almost  the  sole  outlet  for  the  commerce  of  the 
rapidly  filling  Mississippi  valley,  there  was  early  in  the  last  century  phenom- 
enal increase  in  both  exports  and  inports;  but  after  about  1835  the  latter  in- 
creased very  slowly,  while  the  former  continued  to  grow  at  the  same  remarkable 
rate.  Prior  to  the  Civil  War  the  imports  of  the  Northern  states  greatly  exceed- 
ed their  exports.  In  the  Southern  states,  the  reverse  was  the  case.  A compari- 
son of  the  exports  from  all  Southern  ports  with  those  from  all  Northern  ports 
shows  that  after  about  1830  the  former  always  exceeded,  and  sometimes  greatly 
exceeded,  the  latter.  The  imports  of  the  Southern  ports,  however,  were  only  a 

fraction  of  the  imports  of  Northern  ports,  and  became  proportionally  less  as  the 

1 

years  went  by.  If  the  growing  superiority  of  the  North  in  population  be  remem- 
bered, and  the  comparison  be  made  on  the  basis  of  population,  the  disparity  is 
still  striking.  It  indicates  that  either  the  people  of  the  South  did  not  consume 
their  proportionate  share  of  the  nation*  s imports,  or  that  Northern  merchants 
imported  largely  on  Southern  account,  or  both. 


1.  See  appendix,  table  I. 


' 


2 


A study  of  the  growth  of  population  of  Northern  and  Southern  seaports  like- 
wise reveals  a growing  disparity  in  favor  of  the  former.2  The  ante-bellum  South 
had  no  large  and  growing  ports  except  New  Orleans  and  Baltimore,  the  latter  of 
which  was  on  the  line  between  the  two  sections. 

The  available  statistics  of  the  shipping  built  or  owned  in  the  two  sections 
again  reveals  a disparity  in  favor  of  the  North  as  great  or  greater  than  that  in 
the  value  of  imports  or  the  population  of  the  seaports.  If  the  comparison  be 
limited  to  vessels  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade,  it  is  even  more  to  the  advantage 
of  the  North.-1  These  facts  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  foreign  commerce  of 
the  Southern  states  was  carried  largely  in  Northern  or  foreign  vessels,  and  that 
the  coasting  trade  of  the  South,  if  large,  must  have  been  conducted  largely  in 
Northern  vessels. 

The  comparative  growth  of  Northern  and  Southern  seaports,  the  tendency  to 
concentration  of  the  importing  business  of  the  United  States  in  Northern  cities, 
especially  New  York,  and  the  disparity  between  the  shipping  industries  of  the 
two  sections,  in  short  the  "commercial  dependence"  of  the  South  upon  the  North, 
were  matters  which  received  considerable  attention  in  the  ante-bellum  South,  not 
only  from  citizens  of  the  seaports  themselves  but  from  the  section  as  a whole. 
Southern  men  quite  generally  looked  upon  commercial  dependence  as  an  evidence  of 
the  failure  of  the  South  to  prosper  as  it  should.  They  gave  consideration  to  the 
relation  of  commercial  dependence  to  the  comparatively  slow  accumulation  of  mov- 
able capital  in  the  South  and  to  the  inadequacy  of  credit  facilities,  because  of 
which  they  were  handicapped  in  their  efforts  to  construct  internal  improvements 
and  to  develop  the  varied  resources  of  the  section.  They  canvassed  commercial 
dependence  as  a cause  for  the  slov/er  increase  of  population  in  tne  South  than  in 

2.  See  appendix,  table  II. 

3»  See  appendix,  table  III. 


• ' • • -V  • H 


, 


. \ • 


« 


* 


» 

* 


. 


. - .. 


» , 
* , 


3 


the  North — a matter  of  much  concern  because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  sectional 
struggle  over  slavery.  The  causes  of  commercial  dependence  were  sought,  there- 
fore, and  efforts  were  made  to  devise  and  apply  remedies. 

The  whole  subject  was  first  thoroughly  discussed  and  the  first  efforts  made 
to  effect  a revolution  in  the  manner  of  conducting  Southern  commerce  by  a number 
of  direct  trade  conventions  which  met  in  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  end  Virginia 
in  1837,  1838,  and  l839»  The  first  suggestion  that  an  effort  be  made  to  restore 
direct  trade  with  Europe  seems  to  have  been  made  in  1836  by  William  Dearing,  a 
banker,  of  Athens,  Georgia.^  While  the  financial  crash  of  1837  deranged  the 
currency,  exchange,  end  credit  operations  of  the  country,  it  seems  not  to  have 
affected  the  old  South  as  disastrously  at  first  as  it  did  other  sections  of  the 
Union.-'  It  was  seized  upon  as  affording  a good  opportunity  for  attempting  to 
effect  the  establishment  of  direct  trade  and  a change  in  the  method  of  marketing 
cotton.  William  Dearing  and  other  gentlemen  of  Athens  issued  a call  for  a con- 
vention to  meet  in  Augusta  in  October,  1837-  The  call  stated  that  a crisis  had 
arrived  in  the  commercial  affairs  of  the  South  and  Southwest,  "the  most  favorable 
that  has  occurred  since  the  formation  of  the  American  government,  to  attempt  a 
new  organization  of  our  commercial  relations  with  Europe/*. 6 The  first  Augusta 
convention  was  followed  in  April  and  October,  1838,  by  a second  end  a third  end, 
in  April  1839,  by  a fourth,  in  Charleston. 

Each  of  this  series  of  conventions  was  composed  of  from  one  hundred  to  two 
hundred  delegates,  elected  by  local  meetings.  The  great  majority  in  each  case 
were  from  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  but  there  were  scattering  representatives 
from  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  and  Florida  Territory;  and  an  attempt 

**  ' BSfUA'fc-y > LV, 43,188.  The  delegates  of  the  third  Augusta  convention 

presented  William  Dearing  with  a silver  cup  in  recognition  of  his  part  in  inaug- 
urating the  direct  trade  conventions. 


5«  Charleston  Courier.  Oct.  7,  1837. 
6.  Ibid..  Aug.  14,  1837. 


- 


* 


- 


4 


was  made  to  enlist  as  many  Southern  states  as  possible.  Although  the  state 
rights,  anti -tariff  men  gave  tone  to  the  proceedings,  the  conventions  were  bi- 
partisan in  composition;  they  were  not  got  up  for  partisan  purposes;  and  party 
politics  played  a minor  part  in  their  deliberations.  Among  the  deligates  were 
bankers,  merchants,  and  planters,  as  well  as  men  active  in  politics.  The  lists 
of  deligates  included  such  well  known  names  as  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  A.  P.  Hayne, 

George  McDuffie,  James  Hamilton,  Ker  Boyce,  James  Gadsden,  Colonel  Blanding, 

F.  H.  Elmore,  H.  S.  Legare',  J.  H.  Hammond,  J.  E.  and  J.  A.  Calhoun,  Chancellor 
Hur>er,  and  C.  fi.  Memminger,  of  South  Carolina,  Thomas  Butler  King,  A.  H.  Stephan* 
George  W.  Crawford,  J.  M.  Berrien,  0.  B.  Lamar,  Judge  A.  B.  Longetreet,  Aebury 
Hull,  and  Joseph  H.  Lumpkin,  of  Georgia,  A.  J.  Pickett,  of  Alabama,  end  Spencer 
Jarnaghin,  of  Tenneseee.  John  C.  Calhoun  was  not  present  in  any  of  these  con- 
ventions, but  their  purposes  met  with  hie  approval.7  The  presence  and  active 
participation  of  such  men  are  sufficient  to  indicate  the  deep  interest  of  the 
states  represented  in  the  objects  of  the  conventions.  Numerous  local  meetings 
and  the  accompanying  press  discussion  give  testimony  to  the  same  effect. add- 
ition to  the  debates  and  resolutions  and  the  newspaper  comments,  the  views,  ob- 
jects, and  plans  of  the  conventions  were  set  forth  in  several  quite  able  address- 
es and  reports.  The  report  from  the  committee  of  twenty-one  of  the  first  conven-  | 
tion  was  read  by  George  McDuffie,  chairman.  8 He  was  made  chairman  of  a commit- 
tee to  address  the  people  of  the  South  and  Southwest  upon  the  objects  of  the  con- 
vention,  and  wrote  the  address.?  At  the  second  convention  the  report  of  the  gen-  * 

oral  committee  was  read  by  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  chairman;  and  a committee,  of  which  I 

A.  B.  Longetreet  was  appointed  chairman,  was  instructed  to  prepare  an  address  to  j 

the  people.10  At  the  Charleston  meeting  Robert  Y.  Hayne  read  a report  upon  di- 

7.  Calhoun  to  Sidney  Breese,  July  27,  1839,  Calhoun  Correspondence. 

Charleston  Courier.  Oct.  24,  1837. 


9«  DeBow’s  Review.  IV,  208  ff. 


(• 


i 


5 


rect  trade,  which  he  had  prepared,  and  which  was  adopted  by  the  convention;11 
and  F.  H.  Elmore  read  a report  from  a committee  composed  chiefly  of  merchants 
from  interior  towns,  appointed  to  ascertain  whether  goods  had  not  been  imported 

and  sold  at  Southern  seaports  upon  as  good  terms  as  they  could  be  procured  from 
the  North. ^ 

Three  delegates  from  Norfolk,  Virginia,  attended  the  second  Augusta  conven- 
tion and  took  a prominent  part  in  its  proceedings.  Upon  returning  to  Virginia 
they  set  the  ball  in  motion  there,  and  a direct  trade  convention  was  called  to 
meet  in  Richmond  in  June,  1838.  This  meeting  was  followed  by  another  in  Norfolk 
in  November.  Besides  these  two  large  conventions  there  were  a number  of  more 
local  gatherings  which  discussed  the  same  subjects.  The  great  majority  of  the 
delegates  at  Richmond  and  Norfolk  were  from  Virginia,  but  several  came  from 
North  Carolina.  As  were  those  in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  these  gatherings 
were  bi-partisan  in  composition;  but  they  did  not  succeed  so  well  in  keeping 
partisan  politics  out  of  the  proceedings.  Among  the  delegates  were  such  prom- 
inent men  as  John  S.  Millson,  J.  M.  Botts,  James  Caskie,  Francis  Mallory,  Edmund 
Ruffin,  H.  L.  Kent,  Myer  Myers,  and  W.  C.  Flournoy.  At  Norfolk,  John  Tyler  pre- 
sided. These  conventions,  too,  left  several  ably  written  reports,  notably,  the 
report  of  the  committee  on  commerce  of  the  Richmond  convention,^  a report  pre- 
pared and  submitted  to  the  same  convention  by  Francis  Mallory  but  withdrawn  be- 
cause of  the  opposition  it  encountered; and  the  report  of  the  general  committee 

6*  ’•  «.  ^8.  The  ad- 
Miles’  Register.  LV,  4Qf.  ^6*  ~l»  l838»*  a.  Review,  XIII,  477-93; 

11  * DeB°W’  ISdustr^al  Resources  of  the  South  and  West.  Ill,  92-111. 

12.  DeBow’a.  .Review,  iv,  493-502. 

13*  Richmond  En oui rer.  June  22,  1838. 

pamphlet  form!’  JUn8  1338 ' JUne  19 * MaH°ry's  report  may  also  be  found  in 


; . ■ .l  : j i \ 


{ 


< i 


* 


6 


of  the  Norfolk  convention,  read  by  John  S.  Millson."^ 

There  was  substantial  agreement  in  all  of  the  conventions  in  regard  to  the 
manner  in  which  Southern  commerce  was  conducted,  the  evils  attendant  thereon, 
and  the  benefits  to  follow  the  establishment  of  direct  trade  with  Europe.  The 
etaple  growing  states  were  described  as  being  in  a "state  of  commercial  depen- 
dence, scarcely  less  reproachful  to  their  industry  and  enterprise  than  it  is 
incompatible  with  their  substantial  prosperity."  a What  would  be  more  natural 
than  that  those  who  furnished  the  nation's  exports  should  also  receive  its  im- 
ports. Yet,  while  the  South  furnished  two-thirds  of  the  exports,  she  received 
directly  only  one-tenth  of  the  imports  of  the  United  States.  Francis  Mallory 
estimated  that  nine-tenths  of  the  exports  went  direct  to  Europe,  while  five- 
devenths  of  the  imports  from  abroad  came  indirectly  by  way  of  Northern  seaports. 
The  direct  imports  of  Charleston  were  said  to  have  amounted  to  several  millions 

in  1807;  by  1333  they  had  dwindled  to  one-half  million;  since  that  time  they 

17 

had  gradually  increased,  but  were  still  insignificant.  1 The  same  was  said  to 

be  true  of  Virginia:  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution  exports  and  imports  had  been 

equal;  from  that  time  to  1831  imports  had  steadily  declined;  since  1831  there 

l3 

had  been  some,  though  not  marked,  improvement.  Though  Southern  exports  went 

« 

directly  to  Europe,  the  business  was  not  conducted  by  home  merchants,  but  chief- 
ly by  agents  of  Northern  and  English  firms.  Southern  seaports  were  described  as 
mere  appendages  of  Northern  seaporte,  "places  where  their  agents  and  factors  do 

15 • Richmond  Enqui rer  , Nov.  30,  1333.  In  addition  to  xne  reports  already 
mentioned  were  a "Report  on  Manufactures",  and  a "Supplementary  Report  on  Manu- 
factures," both  adopted  by  the  Richmond  convention.  Richmond  Enquirer.  June  26. 
1833. 

16.  Charleston  Courier.  Oct.  24,  1837,  the  report  of  the  general  committee 
of  the  first  Augusta  convention. 

17 • Savannah  Daily  Republican.  April  7,  1338.  Report  of  the  general  commit- 
tee of  the  second  Augusta  convention. 

18.  Richmond  Enquirer.  June  26,  1338,  Mallory's  report. 


e 


*■ 

■ • . . . 


7 


business,  and,  who  having  but  little  local  interest,  withdraw  from  them  after  a 
few  years  residence,  with  all  their  gains,  to  swell  the  wealth  of  the  place  of 
their  early  affection  and  attachment.'*  W in  Virginia, Northern  steamboate  often 
went  up  the  rivers  buying  and  selling  directly  to  the  farmers,  the  lumbermen, 
and  country  merchants;  the  cargoes  were  paid  for  by  bills  on  New  York,  and  the 
money  never  entered  Virginia.  Interior  merchants  purchased  their  stocks  in 

New  York,  Philadelphia,  or  Baltimore  without  the  intervention  of  jobbers,  even, 
in  Southern  ports.^ 

Tne  profits  Northern  merchants  and  shippers  made  from  conducting  Southern 
commerce  were  believed  to  be  very  great,  and  to  account  in  large  measure  for 
the  prosperity  of  Northern  cities;  while  the  loss  of  those  profits  explained 
the  impoverishment  of  the  cities  of  the  South.  The  address  issued  by  the  sec- 
ond Augusta  convention,  after  estimating  at  $630,000,000  the  duties  paid  by  the 

Southern  states  since  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
continued: 


tv  mi-mo™  th  °?  16  g00ds  upon  *hich  the  3ix  hundred  and  thir- 

duti^1  levied>  t0  have  been  but  four  times  the  value  of  the 

duties,  it  amounted  to  $2,500,000,000.  How  were  these  goods  brought  to  this 

dlstr^buted’  The  northern  merchant  has  come  hither  and  bought  from 
the  southern  planter  produce  of  equal  value,  abating  from  the  pr^ce  all  the 

WCt  «"d  incidental  of  translation.0  He  has  insured  thL  in 

rn  !tC6!;  “}*  3bipped  theffl  abroaa  in  his  vessels-sxchanged  them  at 
aaH  for  foreign  merchandise-brought  it  home— paid  one-fourth  its 

LdU?i«8L°t80rr^ant-a'id8S  that  ro0unt  expense f ^importation 

^le  ihe  Jn,w  y ?8e  Tl  t0T  his  pr,>fit8-  t0  tha  ^ and  exposed  it°for 

heavy  eIeen8a-Whter'  m-  a8  T"'  S°n8  *°  ^-lingered  the  summer  through  at 

to  southed  oorte  8^L!eP+rtlr  °J  s00ti3>  re9hiPPed  then  in  northern  vessels 
to  southern  ports— added  twenty-five  per  cent,  more  to  the  price  to  cover  hi. 

•tent"  m^rinPthistS7and  3°ld  th8“  t0  *h8  90uth9rn  Plater?  All  the  disburse- 

alT  toelront!  .ir^.38’  °T  8U°h  “ are  made  abroad-  are  ®tong  northern  men; 
item  in  the  endless  e + i S° uthern  mere. hant ' s,  are  made  by  northern  men.  Every 

sidered  a voluntary  tri^tf  from  thHit'  IJ*  g0V9rnment  dues»  be  con- 

the  north-  for  tw  lie,  7 oitisens  of  the  south  to  their  brethren  of 

porting  and  importing.'*  21  X ***  S°n6  ° °Ur  0Wn  people  had  we  done  °ur  own  ex- 


19  • Ibid. 

2°.  Ibid. 

21.  Niles'  Hej^st^er,  LV,  41. 


* 

’ 


8 


At  Charleston  Robert  Y.  Hayne  quoted  a report  of  a committee  of  the  Alabama 

legislature,  in  which  it  was  estimated  that  over  one-third  the  price  of  cotton 

went  to  New  York  agents  and  shippers.  Hayne,  himself,  was  content  to  put  the 

oo 

tolls  at  10  or  15  per  cent.*"  George  McDuffie  thought  the  "voluntary  tribute" 

pi 

paid  annually  to  the  North  for  carrying  Southern  commerce  amounted  to  $10,000,000. 

A Virginia  delegate  said  the  state  could  save  $1,000,000  annually  by  importing 
24 

directly.  But  this  direct  annual  drain  was  not  the  only  loss  occasioned  the 
Southern  people:  there  were  also  the  "consequential  losses",  that  is,  the  capi- 

tal which  would  nave  accumulated  had  the  South  conducted  her  own  commerce.  Com- 
mercial dependence  had  operated  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  capital  in  the 
South,  and  the  deficiency  of  capital  had  handicapped  enterpriee. 

The  greatness  of  New  York  City  was  picture#--all  said  to  have  been  built 
upon  Southern  staples  and  Southern  trade.  "You  hold  the  element,"  said  the  ad- 
dress of  one  of  these  conventions,  "from  which  he  derives  his  strength,  and  you 
have  only  to  withdraw  it  to  make  him  as  subservient  to  you,  as  you  are  to  him." 

You  have  but  to  speak  the  word,  and  his  empire  is  transf erred  to  your  own  soil, 
and  his  sovereignty  to  the  sons  of  that  soil. "25  But  the  benefits  were  not  con- 
fined to  New  York:  The  virtual  monopoly  of  Southern  commerce  had  "either  direct- 

ly or  indirectly  made  the  whole  of  the  North  and  Northwest  what  they  are,",  accor- 
ding to  the  call  of  the  first  Augusta  convention. “6  Because  of  it,  "the  one 
people  had  risen  like  the  rocket,  and  the  other  had  fallen  like  its  stick.— 
their  positions  must  have  been  reversed,  if  the  southern  people  had  maintained 
their  foreign  trade.",  27  Glowing  descriptions  were  given  of  the  prosperity  of 

22.  DeBow,  Industrial  Resources.  Ill,  93. 

23.  Charleston  Courier,  Oct.  24,  1837,  Report,  first  Augusta  convention. 

24.  Richmond  Bn qui re r . June  15,  1338. 

25.  Miles*  Register,  lv,  43,  second  Augusta  convention. 

26.  Charleston  Courier.  Aug.  14,  1831. 


27*  Miles*  Register,  LV,  43 


tl  *i  : ii\ 


f 


* ' W*  ' . 


f 


9 


Southern  states  «nd  cities  after  direct  trade  should  be  restored.  Were  direct 
trade  established,  according  to  the  address  calling  the  second  Augusta  convention, 
ther^  would  be  an  end  to  the  unequal  barter  of  which  we  have  spoken.  The  dole- 
ful cry  for  northern  funds  would  be  hushed.  The  speculators  upon  southern  dis- 
tress would  cease,  ""he  disorders  of  the  currency  would  be  healed.  The  relation 
of  the  commercial  agency  would  be  changed.  They  would  be  acquaintances  and 
friends,  identical  in  feeling  and  interest;  enjoying  mutual  confidence,  and  inter- 
changing mutual  favors. The  fountain  and  the  streams  of  commerce  lying  all 

within  our  land,  would  enrich  it  to  an  extent  that  none  can  foresee.  Our  works 
of  internal  improvement  would  receive  a new  and  ever-accelerating  impetus.  Our 
drooping  cities  would  be  revived  - our  creeping  commerce  winged;  and  all  the 
blessings,  physical,  moral,  and  intellectual,  which  invariably  accompany  affluence 
end  independence,  would  be  ours.'*  .28 

In  regard  to  the  censes  for  the  "decline"  of  the  shipping  end  the  import 
trade  of  Southern  ports,  the  conventions  exhibited  differences  of  opinion.  First, 
there  was  the  view  that  for  many  years  the  North  had  possessed  great  advantages 
over  the  South  for  these  lines  of  business  by  reason  of  its  superior  wealth  and 
larger  accumulations  of  capital.  Not  only  must  shipowners  and  importers  be  men 
of  large  capital,  but  they  must  have  the  backing  of  wealthy  communities,  tad  men 
of  the  South  Carolina,  school,  the  followers  of  Calhoun  end  McDuffie,  who  predom- 
inated in  the  Augusta  and  Charleston  conventions,  were  ready  with  explanations 
for  the  more  rapid  accumulation  of  capital  in  the  North  than  in  the  South.  It 
was,  they  said,  because  of  the  unequal  operation  of  the  Federal  government.  The 
tariffa  had  long  enriched  the  manufacturing  sections  at  the  expense  of  the  agri- 
cultural. Furthermore,  while  the  people  of  the  South  had  paid  their  proportionate 
share  of  the  Federal  revenues,  they  had  been  disbursed  chiefly  in  the  Northern 

28.  Ibid.,  LV,  43.  C£.  Riohmond  Enquirer.  June  26,  1838. 


' 


" 

■ i 

' • 

* 


‘ - ' 

* 


, •• 


* 

. 


t , . , 


'• 


, 


' " ■ , • 


' f:  . ,0£. ,4V , 


• ■ 

■i  ...  a 


t H I 

..  *} . . . 

. 

« . * 


• • . « - 


10 


cities;  and  this  process,  going  on  year  after  year,  had  transferred  a staggering 
total  from  the  one  section  to  the  other. 

A minority  report  in  the  Richmond  convention  rehearsed  the  old  story  of  the 

assumption  of  the  state  deots  by  the  Federal  government  and  the  refunding  of  the 

national  debt  carried  out  under  the  guidance  of  Alexander  Hamilton.  The  refunded 

debt  had  been  distributed  between  the  North  and  South  in  the  ratio  of  three  is 

to  one;  and,  because  of  this  inequality  of  distribution,  had  acted  as  a mortgage 

of  the  one  section  upon  the  other,  great  sums  having  been  transferred  from  the 

South  to  the  North  in  the  form  of  interest  paid  to  Northern  bond  holders  from  the 

common  treasury,  into  which  the  South  had  paid  its  proportionate  share  of  the 
29 

taxes.  It  was  claimed,  too,  by  men  in  these  conventions  that  for  long  the 
funds  of  the  Federal  government  had  been  deposited  almost  altogether  in  Northern 
oanks,  thus  giving  Northern  business  men  a decided  advantage  over  Southern  in 
the  ability  to  secure  assistance  from  banks.  Those  who  held  these  views  of  the 
causes  of  Southern  decline  saw  basis  for  hope  for  revival  in  the  gradual  reduc- 
tion of  the  tariff,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Compromise  Tariff  law  of 
1833,  the  recent  extinguishment  of  the  national  debt,  the  destruction  of  the 
United  States  Bank,  and  the  evidence  of  a new  policy  in  distributing  deposits  of 
the  public  funds. 

Another  alleged  cause  for  Southern  commercial  dependence,  closely  related  to 
the  one  just  mentioned,  was  the  inadequacy  of  credit  facilities.  An  examination, 
however  cursory,  of  business  methods  in  the  South  in  that  period  makes  it  clear 
that  a successful  importing  firm  would  have  to  command  very  great  resources  of 
capital  or  credit  or  both.  It  was  proverbial  that  the  planters  lived  each  year 
upon  the  prospective  income  from  the  next  year's  crop.  The  country  merchants, 
who  extended  them  long  credit,  could  not  buy,  therefore,  except  on  long  time. 
Importers,  who  bought  on  sixty  or  ninety  days  time,  had  to  sell  to  the  merchants 

29.  Richmond  j&qui rer.  June  26,  1838,  Mallory's  report. 


_ -f  • 


■ 


' 


- ■-  ; ‘ v : 


v ■ •.  \ 


' 


* 


* 

J .... 

' • - ' - i 

>'  * v r ' , 

I ' j 


, 

- ■ » ; 


■ . - • ra 


11 


upon  from  six  to  twelve  or  sixteen  months.  Country  merchants  were  sometimes  un- 

! willing  to  give  negotiable  notes:  they  considered  a request  to  do  so  a reflection 

30 

upon  their  business  integrity.  Southern  importers  and  jobbers  did  not, unaided 
possess  the  means,  and  Southern  banks  were  unable  to  lend  them  sufficient  support, 
to  enable  them  to  extend  to  retail  merchants  the  long  credits  which  the  latter 
received  in  the  North. 

A correspondent  of  the  Charleston  Couri er  attributed  the  loss  of  foreign 

trade  to  the  fact  that  country  merchants  began  to  buy  of  Northern  jobbers  because 

31 

of  the  longer  credits  obtained.  Robert  Y.  Hayne  enumerated  long  credits  as 
one  of  the  oanses  of  the  decline  of  Southern  commerce.  McDuffie  said  he  confi- 
dently believed  that,  if  the  planters  would  "adopt  the  system  of  expending,  in 
the  current  year,  the  income  of  the  year  preceding,  it  would  dispense  with  one- 
half  of  the  capital  that  would  otherwise  be  necessary  for  carrying  on  our  foreign 
commerce  by  a system  of  direct  importation."33  One  of  the  questions  dividing 
public  opinion  in  Virginia  in  that  period  was  the  policy  of  authorizing  an  in- 
crease of  bank  capital  in  the  state.  It  was  the  subject  of  animated  debates  in 
both  the  Richmond  and  the  Norfolk  convention.  Those  favoring  the  increase  thought 
the  unwise  policy  of  the  legislature  in  refusing  the  authorization  largely  respon- 
sible for  the  decline  of  direct  trade  in  Virginia. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  the  men  of  these  conventions  that  they  recognized  j 
other  causes  for  Southern  commercial  dependence  than  the  action  or  nonaction  of 
the  Federal  and  state  governments.  They  recognized  that  agriculture  had  in  the 
past  proved  more  attractive  to  capital  than  the  shipping  or  mercantile  businesses; 

30.  IMd.,  June  22,  1838,  .remarks  of  Mr.  James  and  Mr.  Caskie.  Ibid.. 

June  26,  1838,  Mallory’s  report. 

31.  Oct.  17,  1837. 

32.  Debow,  Industrial  Resources.  Ill,  98. 


33. 


DeBow’ s Review.  IV,  221. 


• x '■  . ■ 


. 

• 

. •-  - 

. 

■ ' i i.  - ' 

..  it  . 


12 


land  and  negroes  had  been  considered  the  best  investments.  The  existence  of  a 
prejudice  against  other  pursuits  than  agriculture  end  the  professions  was  admit- 
ted. Some  were  willing  to  credit  the  people  of  the  North  with  habits^ noT posse ss- 
®d  b>*  thsir  people  and  with  superior  commercial  enterprise;  they  spoke  of  the 
"voluntary  tribute'*  which  the  South  paid  the  North.  The  able  report  cf  the  gen- 
eral committee  of  the  Norfolk  convention,  read  by  John  S.  Willson,  traced  the  de- 
cline of  Virginia's  foreign  commerce  to  a very  early  date.  Before  the  Revolution, 
the  report  said,  business  was  conducted  by  British  capitalists,  and  even  then  the 
resident  merchants  were  foreigners.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution  British  capi- 
tal was  withdrawn.  True,  the  same  thing  happened  in  the  North,  but  to  a less  de- 
gree; end  the  North  was  better  prepared  to  take  the  place  left  by  the  British. 
Furthermore,  agriculture  became  unprofitable  in  the  North  at  an  earlier  day  than 
m the  South,  and  capital  had  been  diverted  to  other  industries.  The  committee 
further  candidly  admitted  that  "the  decline  of  a considerable  portion  of  our  for- 
eign import  trade  may  be  accounted  for  in  the  fact,  that  we  now  derive  from  the 
Northern  states  many  of  those  articles  that  we  formerly  imported  from  abroad/* 

Such  a diversion  of  trade  was  not  a subject  for  regret. 34-  A committee  in  the 
Charleston  convention  likewise  reported  that  the  consumption  of  domestic  goods  had  | 


35 


increased  greatly,  was  still  increasing,  and  was  estimated  by  merchants  to  extend 
already  to  one-third  of  the  whole  consumption.  The  committee  believed,  however, 
the  quantity  of  foreign  goods  consumed  in  the  South  was  sufficient  to  justify 
merchants  in  Southern  seaports  embarking  in  the  importing  business  end  to  enable 
them  to  compete  with  Northern  importers,  who,  of  course,  supplied  a larger  demand? 

It  was  generally  denied  that  Northern  seaports  possessed  any  natural  or  phys- 
ical advantages  over  Southern  seaports  for  conducting  foreign  commerce.  The  di- 
rect course  of  trade  was  the  natural^ course,  and  the  indirect  the  unnatural.  Direct 

34.  Richmond  Enquirer,.  Nov.  30,  I83Q. 

35.  Review,  IV,  495,  Elmore's  report. 


13 


tr»ae  would  savs  one  set  of  jobbers-  profite,  the  cost  of  shipping  coastwise 
from  New  York  or  other  port,  the  difference  between  the  discount  of  Southern 
notes  in  New  York  and  Charleston  (or  the  coot  of  whatever  other  mode  of  payment 
was  employed),  and  the  expenses  retail  merchants  incurred  in  going  north  to  lay 
in  their  stocks.  Southern  harbors  were  said  to  be  as  good  as  Northern.  However 
that  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  ocean  going  vessels  entered  Southern  harbors  to 
receive  their  exports.  These  ships  often  came  in  ballast;  and,  it  was  reasonably 
argued,  would  be  willing  to  carry  imports  at  low  freights.  Shipping  was  consid- 
ered^adequate,  though  there  was  recognition  that  regular  packet  lines  were  need- 
ed. The  South  was  said  to  he.ve  timber  for  ship-building;  but,  in  the  thirties, 
not  much  was  said  about  the  desirability  of  promoting  ship-building  or  ship- 
owning-the  big  object  was  to  save  the  "importers'  profits."  Now  and  then  some- 
one suggested  that  the  importing  business  in  Southern  cities  was  rendered  pre- 
carious by  visits  of  yellow,  or"str«ngere  ",  fever;  but  it  was  not  good  form  to 

speak  of  this,  end  residents  of  the  South  were  ready  to  defend  their  coast  cities 
against  the  prevalent  belief  that  they  were  unhealthy.37 

Various  plans  and  measures  were  auggeeted  for  promoting  direct  importations 
of  foreign  goods.  Some  were  intended  to  overcome  the  obstacle  to  direct  trade 
which  lay  in  the  lank  of  mercantile  houses  with  sufficient  capital  to  enable  them 
to  embark  in  the  importing  business.  The  first  Augusta  convention  took  the  view 
that  while  individual  merchants  were  not  possessed  of  resources  necessary,  the 
requisite  capital  could  be  got  together^  associations  of  individuals;  and  to 

traded  0^10^0^^!” bfh"'’*  00“,e'ltaI'>r-  however,  that  much  of  the  import 
being  tranship;e1%nh:r\\ma^8^eir“^9Vhr0Ugh  *>- 

ca,  I? 7 67  ,m>  9fl;  ^"Shmn.  Slave  States  of  s..h- 

fever  of  her  history  to  that  tin!«  tlle  costly  epidemic  of  yellow 

to  the  conditions  resulting  from  the  PreptVfnty  °f,the  ePideciic  was  partly  due 
ton  Mercury  Sept.  13>  0c?f  £ £!  ^ 


Y v 

' 

, 

r 

* 

t • 

. 

' . ! 

' ' 

,,  , 

. 

* 

e 

« .‘rij,;  . n noo'tt 

< - ’ >( 


‘ 

* 

* < r 


14 


that  end  appointed  a committee  to  memorialize  the  state  legislatures  in  behalf  of 
limited  co-partnership  laws.  In  response  to  the  committee’s  memorials,  the  legis- 
latures of  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  Georgia.,  Alabama,  Tennessee,  and  Florida 
Territory  enacted  the  desired  legislation;  and  subsequent  conventions  urged  men 
of  means  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  thus  afforded.’8  The  opinion 
was  expressed  that  there  was  an  overproduction  of  cotton  in  the  South,  end  that 
planters  could  profitably  invest  a portion  of  the  proceeds  of  their  crops  other- 
wise than  in  land  and  negroes.  If  for  a few  years  the  planters  would  apply  one- 
half  their  net  income  to  commerce,  abundant  capital  would  be  supplied  to  conduct 
the  whole  foreign  commerced  This  suggestion,  however,  could  not  carry  great 
weight;  for,  though  subject  to  fluctuation,  it  was  not  until  1839  that  there  was 
a marked  decline  in  cotton  prices;  and  the  average  for  the  years  1835  to  1839 
was  fourteen  cents,  a higher  average  than  that  of  any  equal  period  since  1820  to 

1824-40 : ^ qU6Sti0n  °f  capitea>  ™ considered,  would  be  a serious  one  only 
while  the  revolution  in  trade  was  being  effected;  for,  once  established,  the  pro- 
fits of  direct  importations  would  supply  the  capital  requisite  for  their  contin- 
uance. 1 


Other. recommendation,  of  the  direct  trede  convention,  dealt  with  the  great 
obetaCj.es  to  direct  trade  which  lay  in  the  inedequacy  of  credit  facilities  in  the 
South.  The  second  Augusta  convention  was  especially  detailed  in  it.  recommend. 


atione.  It  requested  benke  to  fens  European  connection,  that  they  might  be  able 
to  assist  importers  with  letters  of  credit .__It  recocsended  that  the  bank,  in  the 

189.  3The  Ch arl e at on^onv^ti on^ adopted ^ re solu-tio^^di  LV>  43 ' 

appoint  committees  and  designate  thL  r * u 30lutJ;0n  Erecting  the  chairman  to 
meetings  of  the  peo^e  8Pheres»  duty  it  should  be  to  call 

capital  in  limited  partnerships  with  m° r ,iem+'tc  inveat  a portion  of  their  surplus 

their  respective  statH.  Chnl-lel^  ™erckants,  in  trading  centers  and  towns  of 
v wavw  stages.  Charleston  Courier.  April  19,  1839. 


39 


Ihid^. , Oct.  24,  1837;  DeBow’s  Review.  IV,  222. 


40 * E*  J*  Donne11*  History  of  Cotton,  passim. 
41.  Savannah  Republican.  April  10,  1838. 


15 


seaports  discount  paper  from  the  interior  for  the  importing  merchante-as  well 
paper  for  longer  periods  than  six  months  as  for  shorter  periods.  The  benks  of 
the  interior  were  requested  to  co-operate  by  collecting  and  remitting  the  pro- 
ceeds of  such  paper  to  the  coast  with  as  little  delay  as  possible.  "It  is  not 
to  be  concealed  that  without  the  aid  and  support  of  the  banks,  the  difficultieo 
in  our  way  will  be  greatly  multiplied.  It  will  depend  upon  them,  in  great  meas- 
ure, to  determine  the  fate  of  our  great  measure. »«  The  banks  had  suspended  spe- 
cie  payment  in  May,  1637,  end  were  beset  with  great  difficulties.  The  convention 
devised  a plan  for  equalizing  the  domestic  exchanges  and  keeping  up  the  credit 
of  the  banks  during  the  period  of  suspension.  In  substance  the  plan  was  that  the 
banks  of  the  principal  Southern  cities  receive  each  other's  notes  and  adopt  some 
sort  of  a clearing  house  system;  and  that  other  banks  maintain  the  value  of  their 
notes  and  keep  down  the  rates  of  exchange  by  redeeming  their  notes  at  the  sea- 
ports. A committee  was  appointed  to  urge  the  banks  to  adopt  the  plan.4-3  The 
Plan  had  good  points,  but  was  too  complicated  to  be  adopted  at  the  time.  The 
banks  did  make  a more  or  less  concerted  effort  to  resume  specie  payments  in  1838, 
but  after  . few  months  were  again  forced  to  suspend,  October  1839.  The  Virginia 
conventions  contented  themselves  after  hot  discussions,  with  passing  resolutions 

asking  the  legislatures  of  Virginia  end  North  Carolina  to  authorize  increases  of 
banking  capital.44 


Many  other  suggestions  designed  to  promote  direct  importations  were  made.  In- 
dividual citizens  were  urged  to  be  more  enterprising.  It  was  declared  a sacred 
duty  to  buy  of  those  merchants  who  traded  direct  in  preference  to  those  who  bought 
foreign  goods  from  Northern  jobbery  InterWmerchants  were  requested  not  to  go 
42  * Savannah  uap.lya  April  lo,  1838. 

43.  Ibid. . April  6,  1838. 

freet^n"  19’  ^ l838'  states  did  not  have 


. 

. 

' 

* 


. 

* , ■,  Jb#i rf 

* 

« ■ ' - , v 


. 

- 

. 


< 

* 

♦ 

<* 

, 

. 

■ 

• 

16 


North  for  their  stocks  until  they  had  investigated  the  possibilities  of  making 
their  purchases  in  their  own  seaports.  A local  Virginia  convention,  in  1838, 
recommended  the  organization  of  an  association  of  retail  merchants  pledged  to 
deal,  after  September  1,  1839,  with  the  importing  merchants  of  Virginia  cities 
only,  "provided  those  merchants  would  sell  as  cheap  as  the  Northern  merchants"; 
and  sixty  or  seventy  oitizens  actually  signed  a pledge  not  to  patronize  any 
merchant  who  would  not  join  the  association*  The  pledge  system  was  advocated 
in  the  Norfolk  convention,  but  the  convention  refused  to  recommend  it*^° 

Complaint  was  made  that  the  tax  laws  of  the  states  discriminated  against  com- 
meroial  capital  in  favor  of  land  and  slaves.  Some  Southern  states  and  cities 
taxed  sales;  port  and  wharf  charges  and  fees  were  said  to  be  too  high.48  The 
Charleston  convention  adopted  a resolution  requesting  the  state  legislatures 
to  repeal  discriminatory  taxes.  A motion  introduced  at  Norfolk  to  ask  the 
legislature  of  Virginia  to  exempt  direct  imports  from  taxation  was  defeated.50 
The  prejudices  of  the  people  against  mercantile  pursuits  were  deplored:  "The 

commercial  class  must  be  elevated  in  public  opinion  to  the  rank  in  society 
which  properly  belongs  to  it."  It  was  recognized  as  an  evil  that  the  great 
majority  of  the  merchants,  commission  merchants,  and  factors  in  all  the  seaport 
cities  of  the  South  (and  interior  towns  too,  for  that  matter)  were  either 
Northerners  or  naturalized  citizens.  Commercial  education  was  recommended  to  train 

45.  Richmond  jhquirier.  Nov.  13,  1838,  acoount  of  a meeting  in  Elizabeth 
City  County,  Oct.  6,  1838. 

46.  Ibid. . Nov.  20,  1838. 

47.  Charleston  Courier,  April  17,  1839,  "Report  on  the  Taxation  of  Commer- 
cial Capital,"  submitted  by  Mitchell  King  in  the  Charleston  convention. 

48.  De-Bow*  s Revi  ew.  IV,  496. 

49.  Charleston  Courier.  April  19,  1839. 

50.  Richmond  Eaquirier.  Nov.  23,  1838. 


■ 

. ■ 

» ' iX  , v tqj 


. 


■ 


. 


17 


Southern  youth  to  enter  the  field.  Robert  Y . Hayne  advanced  to  hie  eon,  William 
C.,  the  capital  necessary  to  enter  into  a partnership  with  one  of  the  old  import- 
ers of  Charleston.  His  purpose,  he  wrote,  was  to  "try  what  can  be  done  to  rear 
up  a young  brood  of  Carolina  merchants,  which  I believe  to  be  indisrJen  sable  to 
put  our  Southern  America  on  a right  footing. "51  Manufacturers  and  exporters  of 
foreign  countries  were  asked  to  establish  agencies  in  Southern  cities  for  selling 
their  goods,  as  they  had  done  in  New  York  and  other  Northern  seaports.  The  Nor- 
folk convention  considered  this  quite  important;  it  appointed  a committee  of  sev- 
en to  get  in  communication  with  European  firms.52 

The  direct  trade  movement  of  these  years  was  very  closely  related  to  efforts 
being  made  in  the  South  Atlantic  states  to  establish  connections  by  railroads  or 
canals  with  the  Ohio  valley.  South  Carolinians  were  the  chief  promoters  of  a 
great  project,  which  ultimately  had  to  be  abandoned,  to  build  the  uouisville, 
Cincinnati,  and  Charleston  Railroad.  53  The  State  of  Georgia  had  undertaken  the 
construction  of  a trunk  line,  the  Western  and  Atlantic  , from  Atlanta  to  the 
ennessee  River.  Virginia  had  chartered  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Cenai  Com- 
pany, which,  as  the  name  indicates,  was  intended  to  provide  continuous  water  com- 
munication between  the  seaboard  end  the  Ohio.55  All  of  the  direct  trade  conven- 
51.  Hayne  to  J.  H.  Hammond,  Jan.  18,  1839,  J.  H.  Hammond  Papers. 

1830  HI.  100;  Richmond  Enquirer,  Nov.  20  30 

hii  l83\0f°rSe  McDuffi9  ™ in  England  in  the  interart  of  a plan  of 

I,  , ^ P F upon  their  purchases  in  this  wav.  McDuffi*  +n  t h 

Hammond.  March,  31,  1839  (Mancherter,  England).  J.H.  Halondkoar”  “* 

53*  This  project  is  discussed  at  length  in  U B Dhiii-iria  u*  + - _ 

JBortnti.cn  in  the  Eastern  Cotton  Be^t  tv  , „ -hillips,  o X Trans- 

and  ~ ~ ~~~  *****  Chap*  IV;  and  T*  D*  ^rvey,  Robert  Y.  Havne 

54.  Phillips,  0£.  sit.,  ch.  VII. 

55.  0.  H.  Amblar,  jec&onalim  in  Virginia  fron  1776  to  1361.  p.  182. 


( 


18 


tions  very  heartily  endorsed  these  projects  for  connecting  the  South  and  West  as 
most  promising  measures  for  securing  direct  trade.  The  West  sold  to  the  South, 
it  was  said;  if  it  could  also  buy  in  the  South,  such  a demand  for  goods  would  be 
created  in  Southern  seaports  that  there  could  no  longer  be  any  question  of  their 
ability  to  import  directly.  ”'ne  must  contend  for  the  commerce  of  the  West," 
read  Mallory’s  report, "the  section  that  gets  that  commerce  will  get  the  commerce 
of  the  country.'*  A reeclution  adopted  by  the  Norfolk  convention  declared  inter- 


nal improvements  to  be  the  foundation  of  an  import  traded  The  general  commit- 
tee of  the  Second  Augusta  convention  said  that  direct  trade  was  inseparably  con- 
nected with  the  extension  of  intercourse  to  the  West*.  "And  when  the  great  West 
shall  find  a market  and  receive  their  supplies  through  the  seaports  of  the  South, 
a demand  will  be  furnished,  the  extent  and  value  of  which  cannot  be  too  largely 
estimated."*?  Calhoun,  who  took  a deep  interest  in  botfr  projects,  believed  that 
direct  trade  could  not  be  established  until  railroads  had  been  extended  to  the  Ifet. 

On  the  ether  hand,  discussion  of  the  establishment  of  direct  trade  with 
Europe  would  stimulate  interest  in  projects  for  connection  the  seaboard  end  the 
Ohio  valley.  Many  of  the  members  of  the  direct  trade  conventions  were  closely 
associated  with  the  internal  improvement  projects;  and,  though  it  would  be  incor- 
sav  that  the  former  were  got  up  to  give  impetus  to  the  latter,  that  was 
undoubtedly  one  of  the  objects  of  the  conventiona.  The  relation  was  made  very 
clear  in  the  message  of  Mayor  Pinckney,  of  Charleston,  August,  1838.  During  the 
previous  year,  he  said,  Charleston  had  held  meetings,  "giving  a decided  impetus 
to  those  great  enten>rises,  the  Cincinnati  railroad  and  a direct  trade  with  Eur- 
ope, of  which  the  latter  will  supply  the  former  with  its  life  blood,  and  of  which 
the  united  operation  will  assuredly  achieve  the  commercial  Independence  of  the 
Soutn,  and,  with  it,  the  permanent  prosperity  of  our  beloved  city. "55 

c."  Hicnmond  Enquirer.  Nov.  20,  23,  1828. 

57.  |saaa&  JSmfclisaa.  Apm  9,  1838. 

l841>  SsjUmn  Correapo^dftL«reeae>  JUly  2?’  l839;  to  James  Edward  Calhoun,  Nov.  1, 


if 


19 


Although  the  money  panic  of  1837  was  the  occasion  for  the  convening  of  con- 
ventions which  proposed  to  attempt  to  change  the  course  of  Southern  trade,  the 
movement  cannot  be  considered  the  outgroxvth  of  depressed  economic  conditions.  In 
1837  and  I838  it  was  believed  that  business  had  received  only's*  temporary,  al- 
though sharp,  check,  and  that  enterprise  would  soon  be  in  full  swing  once  more. 
As  were  the  rapid  building  of  railroads,  canals,  and  turnpikes,  the  direct  trade 
movement  was  a manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  progress  and  enterprise  which  had 
seized  upon  East,  West,  and  South  alike.  The  movement  came  to  a temporary  close 

when  general  stagnation  of  business  settled  upon  the  country  in  1339  and  contin- 
ued for  several  years  thereafter.60 

It  is  noteworthy  that  these  direct  trade  conventions  were  concerned  almost 
exclusively  with  economic  conditions  and  means  for  improving  them.  The  slavery 
question,  which  was  being  given  considerable  prominence  aoout  tnis  time  both  in 
Congress  and  out  by  reason  of  the  debates  in  Congress  upon  the  exclusion  of  ab- 
olition literature  from  the  mails  and  the  treatment  of  abolition  petitions  in 
Congress,  was  rarely  mentioned.  A decade  later  no  direct  trade  convention  could 
be  held,  no  plan  for  achieving  commercial  independence  proposed,  nor,  for  that 
matter,  for  erecting  a cotton  mill,  building  a railroad,  opening  a mins,  or  in 
any  way  promoting  the  material  progress  of  the  South,  without  consideration  of 

~ its  relati°“  *•  «<•  sectional  struggle  over  slavery  and  the 

extension  thereof.  The  argument  would  then  without  fail  be  advanced  that  the 

South  must  develop  her  strength  and  resources  and  achieve  commercial  and  indust- 


rial 


independence  in  order  to  be  prepared  to  defend  her 


rights  and  honor  in  the 


Union  or,  if  worst  came  to  worst,  her  independence  out  of  it.  George  McDuffie 


60»  The  Charleston  conventi 
Xo40 ; the  meeting  did  not  occur, 
meot  in  Raleigh,  North  Carolina 
meeting  of  the  convention. 


on  adjourned 
The  Norfolk 
in  November, 


to  meet  in  Macon,  Georgia,  in  May, 
convention  arranged  for  another  to 
1^39;  there  is  no  record  of  the 


* 

( 


, 


- 

- 

( 

, 


r-  • : 


20 


j did  indeed  allude  to  the  existence  of  causes,  tariff  and  slavery,  which  made  the 
j dismemberment  of  the  confederacy  "one  of  the  possible  contingencies  for  which  it 
is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  provide'’;01  but  as  yet  such  considerations  were  very 
infrequently  advanced,  at  least  in  public*  The  direct  trade  conventions  of  the 
thirties  were  in  the  main  what  they  purported  to  be,  namely,  bona  fide  efforts  on 
the  part  of  Southern  men  to  promote  the  prosperity  and  progress  of  their  states 
and  section  and,  particularly,  their  seaports. 

Several  reasons  may  be  advanced  to  explain  the  comparatively  little  interest 
displayed  in  the  direct  trade  movement  outside  the  three  states  of  Georgia,  South 
Carolina,  and  Virginia*  North  Carolina  had  no  seaport  which  was  considered  to 
have  the  requisite  natural  advantages  for  becoming  a great  Southern  emporium. 

Most  of  her  exports  and  imports  were  made  by  way  of  Virginia  and  South  Carolina. 
Her  population  was  conservative  and  comparatively  devoid  of  state  pride.  Alabama 
and  Louisiana  had  seaports  in  Mobile  and  New  Orleans.  Both  states  were  young  and 
were  growing  rapidly  in  population.  Their  agriculture  had  been  prosperous.  Just 
before  the  financial  panic  of  1837,  both  had  enjoyed  several  years  of  speculative 
prosperity,  which  had  been  fully  shared  by  Mobile  and  New  Orleans.  The  rapidly 
rowing  population  of  the  two  towns  consisted  largely  of  immigrants  from  the 
North  of  Europe;  civic  pride  had  not  yet  developed.  The  crash  nf  1837  was  more 
severe  in  the  Southwest  then  in  the  older  Southern  states;  and  the  time  was  not 
auspicious  for  interest  in  any  new  movements. 

The  direct  trade  conventions  accomplished  no  tangible  results  in  the  way  of 
changing  the  course  of  Southern  commerce.  Thqy  afford  evidence  of  discontent  in 
the  older  states  of  the  douth  with  their  material  progress.  They  show  that  the  be' 
lief  was  held,  and  no  doubt  they  contributed  to  its  spread,  that  commercial  depen- 
dence was  an  evidence,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a cause  of  "Southern  decline."  It 


61.  DeBow’ s Revi ew.  IV,  219. 


' m 


. 

* 


21 


ia  unnecessary  to  point  out  the  common  element  in  the  view  that  the  East  was 
being  enriched  at  the  expense  of  the  South  because  of  the  commercial  vassalage 
of  the  latter,  and  another  quite  prevalent  belief,  namely,  that  the  operation 
of  the  Federal  government  had  been  unequal  in  its  effects  upon  the  material  pro 
gress  of  the  two  sections.  The  direct  trade  conventions  were  another  manifest- 
ation of  the  economic  discontent  of  which  evidence  had  been  given  during  the 
nullification  controversy. 


' 


: • • . ' * . . . . 

• . . ... 


* 


CHAPTER  II . 


211®.  Miration  in  Favor  of  the  Establishment 
of  Cotton  Manu f acturea,. 

1840-18,52. 

The  industrial  revolution  was  not  well  under  way  in  the  South  until  almost 
a generation  after  the  Civil  War.  While  the  ante-bellum  South  was  not  complete- 
ly  devoid  of  manufacturing  and  mining,  the  progreaa  of  those  induetriea  did  not 
Keep  pace  with  the  progreee  of  agriculture.  Southern  industry  was  scarcely  more 
diversified  in  1360  than  in  the  earlier  decades  of  the  century.  In  this  respect 
the  south  presented  a contrast  to  the  North,  where  the  industrial  revolution  was 
proceeding  apace.  Elsewhere  in  this  thesis  statistics  are  given  which  illustrate 
the  comparative  industrial  progress  of  the  sections. 

During  the  1340s  Southern  agriculture  suffered  a long  and  quite  severe  de- 
pression. During  the  same  period  cotton  factories  were  being  establiehed  at  a 
more  rapid  rate  than  in  the  decades  immediately  preceding  or  following,  end  there 
was  unusual  progress  in  a few  other  lines  of  industry.  The  profit,  of  manufact- 
urers seem  to  have  been  large  in  comparieon  with  those  of  planters.  These  condi- 
tion, were  chiefly  responsible  for  the  beginning  of  a more  or  lose  organized  agi- 
tation in  favor  of  the  establiehment  of  manufactures.  As  the  agitation  developed, 
social  and  political  arguments  were  adduced  to  support  the  economic.  The  argu- 
ments of  the  proponents  of  diversified  industry  did  not  go  uncontroverted,  however 

?0*  : t a‘VAlysi*  tMs  discussion  shed  light  upon  the  subject  of  econ- 

omic discontent  in  the  South  before  the  Civil  War.  An  essential  similarity  will 
be  noted  between  some  of  the  ideas  at  the  basis  of  the  agitation  in  behalf  of 

manufactures  and  ideas  which  animated  the  direct  trade  movement  described  in  the 
preceding  chapter. 

The  decade  1140-1350  brought  the  severest  depression  to  agriculture,  partic- 
ularly to  cotton  culture,  that  the  South  experienced  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  Dur- 


' . 

, ......... 

■ ' I 


* 

, 

‘ 

' 

. 

5 

' ; •• 

. 


* 


* 

* 

' 

* 


23 

ing  tne  preceding  decade  cotton  prices  had  averaged  12.6  cents,  and  the  induetry 
was  profitable.  During  the  l840e,  however,  the  average  price  wae  about  8 cents, 
and  the  cotton  planters  were  greatly  disheartened.  The  decade  opened  with  cot- 
ton between  8 and  9 cents;  the  following  year  prices  were  slightly  higher;  but 
after  1841  prices  steadily  declined  until  middling  upland  sold  for  5 cents  in 
Mew  York,  January  1,  1845,  the  lowest  price  ever  paid  for  American  cotton.1  A 
contributor  tc  the  Southera  guart^  Re^ew  wr0t9:  «At  n0  period  of  her  hiotory> 

from  the  year  1781,  has  a greater  gloom  been  cast  over  the  agricultural  prospects 
of  South  Carolina,  than  at  the  present  time."2  John  C.  Calhoun  wrote  his  son-in- 
law:  "Cotton  still  continue,  to  fall.  It.  average  price  may  be  said  to  be  about 
4 cents  per  pound.  The  effect  will  bo  ruinous  in  the  South,  and  will  rouse  the 
feeling  of  the  whole  eection.»3  For  years,  134?  was  remembered  as  the  year  of 

the  great  cotton  crisis.  The  depression  in  agriculture  was  not  confined  to  the 

cotton  belt.  Edmund  Ruffin  wrote  fm™  * 

™ rron  virSmia  that  prices  were  so  low  that  ag- 

riculture  could  scarcely  live.*  Similar  reports  came  from  the  Northwest,  which 
still  depended  largely  upon  the  cotton  belt  for  a market  for  grain,  pork  and  ba- 
con. and  live  stock.  The  replies  to  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Walker's  circular 
(1845)  requesting  infomation  upon  which  to  base  recommendations  for  a rev  ision 
Of  the  tariff,  even  after  due  allowance  has  been  made  for  partisan  bias,  testify 
to  the  low  state  of  agriculture  in  the  South  and  West .3  A North  Carolinian  re- 
ported that  for  three  years  the  profits  of  agriculture  in  this  state  h*  not  been 
mere  than  3 per  cent.,  because  of  poo^crop.^and  low  prices;  horses  and  mules  were 

W 7ha  Ootton  Trade  18«- 

satton,  ussr^rsr it  Ha^^9. bus** 

2*  VIII,  118  (July,  1845). 

3.  Calhoun  to  Thomas  C.  Clemson,  Dec.  27,  1844,  CgLhoun  Corresnondsnes- 

4.  Ruffin  to  Hammond,  May  17,  1845,  Hammond  p.u.-, 

Wi  f?!ng"  1 Ses9-  No-  5-  A ***  of  the  replies  is  in 


i 


, 


' 


■ 


1 . ,r  ■ 


l ; •> 


, • ’■ 


t,  ► 


24 


imported  from  Ohio,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  western  Virginia,  and  pri- 
ces were  one-third  lower  than  they  had  bean  during  the  ton  years  preceding.  Simi- 
lar replies  came  from  south  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Alabama.  Replies  from  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Missouri  represented  the  profits  of  agriculture  to  be  from 

2 to  5 per  cent.  Scarcely  a response  was  optimistic  about  the  outlook  for  agri- 
culture. 

The  grain  growing  states  were  the  first  to  experience  a revival  of  prosper- 
ity. In  1846  the  crop  failure  in  Ireland  and  large  deficiencies  in  Great  Britain 
and  in  many  parts  of  the  Continent  created  an  extraordinary  demand  for  foodstuffs, 
»hich,  together  with  the  repeal  of  the  English  Corn  Laws  the  some  year,  led  to  a 
remarkable  increase  in  the  exports  of  provisions  from  America  in  that  and  the  fol- 
lowing year.6  other  factors  soon  entered  into  play,  and  Western  agriculture  en- 
tered upon  a period  of  remarkable  prosperity  unbroken  until  1857.?  The  revival 
of  prosperity  in  the  cotton  industry  was  delayed  for  two  or  three  years.  The 
crop  of  1846  was  short:  whils  the  very  conditions  which  caused  a great  increase 


in  the  prices  of  provisions  prevented  a considerable  rise  in  the  p&ce.  It  was 

* 3*yinS  in  the  S0Uth  that  “ear  bre,,il  in  meant  cheep  cotton.  The  crops  of 

1847  and  1848  wars  large;  breadstuffe  continued  high  in  Great  Britain;  Europe,  in 
1843,  was  in  revolution;  and  cotton  prices  remained  low.  In  the  fall  of  1849, 
however,  cotton  was  high.  Pacification  of  Europe,  revival  of  business  in  France, 
find  harvests  and  consequent  cheap  bread  in  England,  the  exhaustion  of  old  stock! 
Of  raw  cotton,  and  the  belief  that  the  new  crop  was  short,  caused  the  season  to 
open  with  cotton  at  0.5  to  11.5  cents  at  New  Orleans.  The  average  for  the  year 
was  between  11  s„d  12  cents,  and  the  price  was  maintained  the  following  year. 
Though  tne  price  fell  again  in  1851-52,  it  never  again,  before  the  War,  fell  to 


6.  Census  of  i860,  AgrlcujLt^re,  exli 


25 


the  level  of  the  104Oe.  The  average  price  for  the  decade  1850-60  wae  10.6  cento. 

The  depressed  condition  of  agriculture  during  the  fifth  decade  occasioned 
much  discussion  of  causes  end  possible  means  of  improvement.  The  lev  price  of 
cotton  was  variously  attributed  to  the  tariff,  to  speculation,  and  to  overproduct- 
ion; and  corresponding  remedies  were  proposed.  Some  thought  ell  would  be  well 
were  the  tariff  repealed,  others  suggested  reform  of  the  system  of  selling  cot- 
ton. Schemes  were  brought  forward  for  limiting  production.  More  practical  men, 
perhaps,  proposed  that  agriculture  be  diversified,  end  that  other  crops  than  cot- 
.01,  be  produced.  Finally,  manufactures  were  recommended  as  a more  profitable  in- 
vestment for  capital  than  cotton  culture,  in  which  toe  much  capital  wae  already 
inve  sted . 

As  cotton  prices  fell  the  older  cotton  states  were  the  first  to  find  its 
culture  unprofitable.  Their  lands  could  not  compete  on  equal  tsras  with  the  new- 
er lands  of  the  Southwest;  and  they  faced  not  only  reduced  prices  and  diminished 
returns,  but  also  loss  of  population  through  emigration.  As  early  as  1841,  J.  H. 
Hammond,  of  South  Carolina,  in  an  address  before  the  State  Agricultural  Society, 
showed  a thorough  grasp  of  the  situation  and  proposed  the  remedies  which  were  so 
fully  discussed  during  the  following  years.?  In  the  past,  he  said,  the  production 
of  cotton  could  not  keep  pace  with  the  demand,  but  now  production  premised  to  out- 
run consumption.  Already  the  price  had  been  forced  dear,  to  a figure,  8 cente,  at 
which  cotton  culture  in  South  Carolina  was  profitable  only  on  the  richest  soils. 

As  remedies  Her, . end  proposed,  first,  improved  methods  of  cultivation  and  diversi- 
fication of  agriculture.  The  planters  must_ grow  grain  in  sufficient  quantities  to 

trade^ere™^  Mci  “t^  “ C°tt#" 

& ST.E 

******&.'  MaS-ins.  See 

9«  Fil*  20,  219,  J . H«  Hgj’nmonri  Papers. 


. 

■ 

' 


. 

. 


< ■ 


f 


♦ 


26 

supply  the  home  demand;  they  must  raise  live  stock  end  save  the  "immense  sums 
which  are  annually  drawn  from  us  in  exchange  for  mules,  horses,  cattle,  hops, 
sheep,  and  even  poultry.”  Tobacco,  indigo,  sugarcane,  and  grapes  might  be  intro- 
duced. But  these  remedies  would  not  suffice:  capital  must  be  diverted  from  agri- 

culture to  other  pursuits.  The  state  had  mineral  resources  which  could  be  devel- 
oped. "Already  furnaces,  forges,  bloomeries,  end  rolling  mills  have  been  put  in 
pperation  with  every  prospect  of  success  at  no  dietant  day."  He  hoped  coal  would 
be  feund  near  the  iron.  The  state  possessed  splendid  resources  of  water-power.  A 
beginning  bed  been  made  in  cotton  manufacture.  Manufactures  should  not  be  foster- 
ed by  legislation  at  the  expense  cf  ether  industries;  but  -here  they  grew  up  spon- 
taneously they  were  undoubtedly  a great  blessing,  increasing  population,  providing 
a home  marks,  for  agriculture,  and  saving  large  sums  which  otherwise  would  be  sent 
out  of  the  state.  An  industrial  revolution  was  inavitabla;  and  the  change  could 
be  effected  with  less  anxiety  and  loss  if  begun  early  and  judiciously  conducted. 
Hammond  regretted  the  revolution  in  industry  and  in  "manners  and  probably  the  en- 
tire structure  of  our  social  system"  which  the  failure  of  the  old  system  wes  like- 
ly to  occaeion,  but  saw  no  grounds  for  apprehension.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that 
these  remarkably  broad  views  were  expressed  by  a man  who  hed  been  a nullifier  in 
1832,  as  governor  of  the  state,  in  1844,  was  ready  to  lead  in  separate  resist 

once  to  the  Tariff  of  1842,  and  who,  shortly  after,  wrote  the  famous  Utters  on 
^dressed  to  Thomas  Clarkson.  Esauire. 

In  the  following  years  the  discussion  increased  in  volume.  The  Charleston 
Patrioi  published,  1842,  a series  of  articles  in  which  it  was  maintained  that  than, 
was  an  ove>Troducticn  of  cotton  end  the  people  of  South  Carolina  were  urged  to 
abandon  in  part  the  raising  of  that  staple  and  tun,  their  attention  to  manufactur- 
ing. Georgia  newspapers  were  recommending  to  their  people  to  do  the  same.11 


10.  Niles*  Register.  LXII,  71. 


11  * Ifrld..  LXII,  71. 


, 


. 

< 


( 

« 


, 


27 


Profeasor  M'Cay,  of  the  University  of  Georgia,  v/ho  for  many  years  reviewed  the 
cotton  trede  for  Hunt.*  b Merc .hearts 1 Magazine,  warned  planters  that  production  was 
outrunning  consumption.3 2 In  February,  1845,  a convention  of  cotton  planters  was 
held  in  Montgomery,  Alabama,  to  organize  the  planters  of  the  cotton  belt  for  the 
purpose  of  limiting  production  and  forcing  prices  up.1^  The  committee  on  agri- 
culture of  the  Southern  and  Western  Convention,  at  Memphis,  1845,  complained  that 
interest  in  agricultural  improvement  had  given  way  to  interest  in  internal  im- 
provements and  politics,  and  that  there  was  an  overproduction  of  cotton.  The  com- 


mittee recommended  that  planters  grow  less  cotton  and  produce  their  own  bread  and 
#eat;  that  scientific  agriculture  be  encouraged  by  the  establishment  of  agricul- 
tural societies  and  agricultural  journals,  and  by  state  legislatures;  and  that 
capital  be  diverted  from  cotton  planting  to  manufacturing.14  There  was  still  talk, 
however,  of  possible  competition  from  India  if  prices  should  rise;1*  and  the  low 
prices  were  frequently  attributed  to  speculation  in  cotton  and  to  e combination  of 
English  .actors  with  the  Manchester  buyers.3^' 

It  was  in  South  Carolina  that  a serious  attempt  to  arouse  the  public  mind  in 
favor  of  the  diversification  of  industry  was  first  Bade.  The  situation  there  wee 
unusual.  Not  only  was  the  depression  in  the  cotton  industry  most  severely  felt, 
but  the  peculiar  political  bias  of  a large  element  threatened,  in  1844  and  1845, 
to  lead  to  another  crisis  similar  to  that  of  1832  and  1833.  W>en  the  Tariff  of 
1842  was  enacted,  the  South  Carolina  legislature  had  been  content  to  pass  resolu- 
tions denouncing  it  end  declaring  that  it  would  be  endured  as  long  as  there  was 
hope  of  repeal  by  the  Democratic  party^aft.r  tne  next  election.1?  In  the  next  Con- 
12.  HunVs  Merchants'  M^azine,  IX,  523.  13.  Niles'  Register.  LXVIII,  4. 

14 * ~-urnal,  .c.£  the  Memphia  Convention.  41-55. 

15«  Donnell,  History  of  Cotton,  276. 

i6.  New  Orleans  gee,  Mer.2,  1844;  17.  Ibid..LXITT  212-235  344.5 

Mies’  Register,  LXVI,  38.  ” J * 


28 


gress,  1843-45,  the  Democrats  were  in  the  majority  in  the  House;  but  an  attempt 
to  pass  a tariff  bill,  the  McKey  oill,  was  defeated,  May,  1844,  by  an  alliance  of 
twenty-seven  Northern  Democrats  with  the  Whigs.  This  desertion  by  Northern  Dem- 
ocrats and,  shortly  thereafter,  the  publication  of  the  celebrated  "Kane  Letter", 

in  which  the  Democratic  candidate  for  the  presidency  cleverly  "straddled"  the  tar- 
19 

iff  question,  caused  many  in  South  Carolina  to  abandon  hope  of  relief  from  the 
burdens  of  the  tariff  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Democratic  party.  Mean- 
vfaile  the  blocking  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  by  representatives  from  the  non- 
slaveholding states  had  occasioned  the  cry  of  "Texas  or  disunion"  in  South  Caroli- 
na and  other  Southern  states.  Under  these  circumstances  a group  of  South  Carolina 
politicians,  led  by  R.  B.  Rhett,  Armistead  Burt,  and  I.  E.  Holmes,  with  the  sup- 
port of  the  Charleston  Mercury  and  several  other  papers  of  like  stripe,  and  the 


sympathy  of  Governor  J.  H.  Hammond,  George  McDuffie,  and  langdon  Cheves,  declared, 

in  the  summer  of  1844,  for  state  resistance  to  the  Tariff  of  1842  and  attempted  to 

lead  the  state  to  adept  that  policy.20 

It  was  with  some  difficulty  that  John  C.  Calhoun,  F.  H.  Elmore, 

and  other  leaders  checked  the  "Bluff ton  Movement",  as  it  was  termed, 

21 

and  caused  saner  counsels  to  prevail.  Governor  Hammond,  indeed,  in 


18.  Cong.  Globe.  28  Cong.,  1 Sess. , 622. 

19.  National  Intelligencer.  July  25,  1044. 

20.  I.  E.  Holmes  to  Hammond,  July  23,  1844,  J.  H«  Hammond  Papers : Hammond  to 
Capt.  R.  J.  Colcock,  Sept.  12,  1844  (asking  for  the  plans  of  the  Citadel);  George 
McDuffie  to  Hammond,  Sept.  22,  1844;  General  James  Hamilton  to  Hammond,  Oct.  4, 
1844;  R.  B.  Rhett  to  Hunter,  Aug.  30,  1844,  Correspondence  of  R.M.T.  Hunter; 
Charleston  Mercury,  an  account  of  the  dinner  given  to  R.g’.  Rhett  at  Bluffton, 

South  Carolina,  July  31,  1844*  where  the  movement  was  launched  and  whence  it  got  i 
name;  hoi_ci. , Aug.  9,  editorial,  "Our  Position  and  Our  Pledges"  (By  A.  J.  Stuart, 
senior  editor);  Niles*  ^Register.  LVI,  369,  quoting  letter  from  I.  E.  Holmes  to  the 
Charleston  Mercury;  ioid. , LVII , 148,  quoting  letter  from  Judge  Langdon  Cheves  to 
the  Charleston  Mercury. 

21.  F.  H.  Elmore  to  Calhoun,  Aug.  26,  1844,  Calhoun  Correspondence.  "The  excite- 
ment in  a portion  of  Carolina has  gradually  subsided,  and  will  give  no  further 

trouble.  I had  to  act  with  great  delicacy,  out  at  the  same  time  firmness  in  re- 
lation to  it."  Calhoun  to  Thomas  G.  Clemson,  Oct.  7,  1844,  Calhoun  Correspondence 
Cf.  James  A.  Seddon  to  Hunter,  Aug.  19,  22,  1844,  Correspondence  of  R.M.T.  Hunter: 
Nil.es/  Register,  LVI,  434,  account  of  the  big  Charleston  meeting  of  Aug.  19,  1844. 


s 


' ■ '•  ' •*  ' ‘}l  ■*  * • • :o!.!>;or 

■ i '■£  **  I >tr;  a 

. 


. 


, 


' 


his  message  to  the  legislature,  November  26,  1844,  arraigned  the  tariff,  express- 
ed the  opinion  that  no  relief  could  be  expected  from  the  incoming  Polk  adminis- 
tration, and  urged  the  ] egislature  to  take  such  measures  as  would  at  an  early  day 
bring  all  the  state's  "moral,  constitutional,  and  if  necessary,  physical  resources 
in  direct  array  against  a policy  which  has  never  been  checked  but  by  her  inter- 
position.'1  22  But  the  legislature  tabled  all  resolutions  for  resistance,  and  by  a 
large  majority  voted  confidence  in  the  Democratic  party.  This  action  was  taken 


just  after  the  notorious  Twenty-first  Rule  of  the  House,  prohibiting  the  receiv- 
ing of  abolition  petitions,  had  been  defeated  at  Washington.^  The  leaders  of  the 
Bluffton  Movement  credited  their  defeat  to  the  presidential  aspirations  of  John  C. 
Calhoun,  and  complained  very  bitterly  of  what  they  termed  his  desertion.24 

The  resistance  faction,  as  well  as  anti-tariff  men  who  still  placed  reliance 
in  the  Democratic  party,  attributed  the  crisis  in  the  cotton  industry  to  the  tar- 
iif.  They  thought  the  view  that  there  was  an  overproduction  of  cotton  unworthy  of 
consideration.2^  England,  they  said,  could  not  consume  cotton  because  the  Tariff 
of  1842  had  deprived  her  of  the  American  market  for  manufactured  goods.  I.  E. 
Holmes  professed  to  believe  that  the  operation  of  the  tariff  would  in  a few  years 
render  cotton  planting  entirely  profitless,  and  that  no  other  industry  could  be 
found  to  which  labor  could  profitably  be  turned.26  Rhett  and  McDuffie  warned  tar- 
iff men  in  Congress  that  South  Carolina  might  be  "driven"  to  manufacture  for  her- 

22  • Miles'  Register.  LXVII,  227  ff. 


, r ,?*  J®  McDuffie,  Dec.  27,  1844,  J>.  H.  Hammond  Papers:  F.  W.  Pickens 

to  Calnoun,  Dec.  28,  1844,  Calhoun  Correspondence:  Niles'  Register.  LXVIII,  347 
Uug.  16,  184„),  quoting  from  the  Charleston  Mercury,  a letter  from  "Bluffton  Pol- 
2 See!!?  ’7dated  on  the  anniversary  of  the  Bluffton  dinner;  Cong.  Globe,  28  Cong. 

24.  Hammond  to  McDuffie,  Dec.  27,  1844,  J.  H.  Hammond  papers. 

better  of  Judge  John  P.  King,  Charleston  Mercury.  Nov.  5,  1844. 

LXVI'  369’  qU°ting  the  Charlefrt°n  ItoMWSHstW.  In- 


. 


30 


self. x 7 Calhoun  wrote:  "The  pressure  of  the  tariff  begins  to  be  felt,  and  under- 

stood, ufoich  will  lead  to  its  overthrow,  either  through  Congress  or  the  separate 

28 

action  of  the  South.” 

Against  these  convictions,  the  Whigs  and  many  Democrats  took  issue.  The 

29 

Charleston  Courier  declared  without  equivocation  for  a moderate  tariff.  A 
pemphleteer,  replying  to  a letter  of  Judge  Langdon  Cheves,  declared  that  free  trad< 
would  not  save  the  state.  The  ruin  of  the  state  was  due  to  the  lack  of  stimulus 
which  manufactures  would  give  to  agriculture  and  commerce;  and  it  was  the  hostility 
of  politicians  which  prevented  manufactures  from  being  established.30  R.W.  Roper,  a 
rich  planter,  generally  aligned  in  politics  with  the  Hammond  or  anti— machine  fac- 
tion of  the  Democratic  party,  came  out  for  the  policy  of  encouraging  domestic  manu- 
factures as  an  amelioration  of  the  tariff.  In  an  address  before  the  State  Agricul 
tural  oociety,  Novemoer  1844,  he  traced  the  depression  in  the  cotton  industry  to 
overproduction,  and  declared  for  diversified  agriculture  and  the  encouragement  of 
manufactures  and  commerce,  not  only  as  a remedy  for  economic  ills  but  also  as  a 
means  of  becoming  independent  of  the  North.  “As  long,”  he  said,”as  we  are  tribu- 
taries, dependent  on  foreign  labor  and  skill  for  food,  clothing,  and  countless  nec< 

31 

saries  of  life,  we  are  in  thraldom.”  Roper’s  address  was  virorously  attacked  in  t 
series  of  articles  in  the  Charleston  Mercury  under  the  caption,  ’’Shall  we  continue 
to  plant  and  increase  the  overgrowth  of  cotton?  Or  shall  we  become  manufacturers 
of  cotton  stuffs?”  In  the  opinion  of  the  author  of  these  articles,  there  was  no 
over  production  of  cotton;  but  the  ills  of  the  South  came  from  overtaxation.  South 
Carolina,  he  said,  could  not  develop  diversified  industry  with  her  systan  of  labor, 

27.  iLqng. Globe,  28  Cong. ,1  Sess.,648;  App.108;  Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine. X.  406. 

28.  Calhoun  to  Thomas  G.  Clamson,  Dec.27,  1844,  Calhoun  Correspondence. 

29.  Quoted  in  the  National  Intelligencer.  Aug.  6,  1844. 

30.  haply,  to  the  Letter  of  the  Hon.  Langdon  Cheves.  By  a Southerner. 

31.  Roper  to  Hammond,  Oct.  28,  1844,  J.H.  Hammond  Papers:  Niles*  Register.  LZVIII, 
103,  120.  The  address  was  reviewed  in  the  So.Quar.Rev.  7111,118-148  (July. 1845). 


' * 


. 


• • 


" 


- ' £ . . 
' 

: ■ . . 

. • 


* 


V. 

. . 


. 


. 


*•  t>  % I 

; 

- 


, 

• •• 


, 

. . . ' ' ' 


31 


and  it  was  not  desirable  that  she  should.32 

L*te  in  the  year  1844  there  appeared  a series  of  articles  headed  "Essays  on 
Domestic  Industry;  or  an  Inquiry  into  the  Expediency  of  Establishing  Cotton  Manu- 
facture, in  South  Carolina/-  by  Wiliam  Gregg,  of  south  Carolina.  The  article, 
first  appeared  in  the  Charleston  Courier.  Upon  request  they  were  reprinted  in 
pamphlet  form.  They  attracted  wide  attention  throughout  the  South,  being  repub- 
lished in  nearly  all  the  newspapers  of  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  other  states.33  They 
constituted  the  most  elaborate  argument  for  the  diversification  of  Southern  in- 
dustry that  appeared  before  the  Civil  War.  Already  a cotton  manufacturer,  Gregg 
later  increased  his  interests.  He  was  known  until  after  the  Civil  War  as  the 
most  successful  cotton  manufacturer  in  the  Southern  state,  and  the  ablest  advo- 
cate of  the  policy  of  developing  manufactures  in  that  section.34 

Gregg  described  the  depressed  condition  of  agriculture  in  the  state  and  the 
tendency  of  capital  and  enterprise  to  migrate  to  more  fertile  lands.  The  causes 
he  found  to  lie  not  in  the  tariff  hut  in  lack  of  energy,  want  of  diversified  agri 
culture,  8„d  dependence  upon  the  North  for  numerous  articles  of  manufacture  which 
aiSht  he  produced  at  home.  He  called  attention  to  the  rapid  progress  then  being 
in  cotton  manufacturing  in  the  neighboring  states  of  Georgia  and  North  Caro- 
lina,and  advised  the  people  of  South  Carolina  to  simulate  the  example.  He  showed 
that  the  requisite  capital  was  available.  As  for  a labor,  supply  slaves  could  be 
used  and  in  many  respects  would  be  preferable  to  whites;  but  he  did  not  overlook 
the  possibility  of  employing  the  thousands  of  poor  whites,  who  as  a class  were  an 
unproductive  element  in  society.  Later  he  bec„e  an  eartest  advocate  of  the  em- 

Ployment  of  this  das.  both  on  econoj»ic.«nd_  philanthropic  grounds.  Gregg  under- 
32-  Mss'  Register.  LXVII1,  54,  103,  120. 

33  • DeBowr* a Review  X 3 49  m.  _ _ 

DeBow’  e Review  Vttt  vj/i  a/T  . ssays  are,  in  a somewhat  abridged  fnrm  ■;  r 

34.  DeBow’s  Review  x 

—>  , - jf  • , for  a short  sketch  of  Gregg’s  career. 


* 

' 

. 

> 


. ‘i  . . • •. 


- 


. 

■ 


( • 

♦ 


, 


32 


stood  the  difficulties  which  infant  industries  would  have  to  meet.  He,  therefore 
advised  the  establishment  of  factories  by  joint  stock  companies  rather  than  by  in- 
dividuals, and  confinement  for  several  years  to  the  manufacture  of  only  coarse 
goods,  thus  taking  fullest  advantage  of  the  ability  of  Southern  mills  to  command 
cheaper  raw  materials  than  Northern  mills.  It  seemed  politic  not  to  uhauly\anta- 
«Ionize  the  wrti -protection! at  sentiment  of  South  Carolina.  Gregg  assured  his  read- 
ers  that  no  laws  would  be  asked  for  the  protection  of  the  enterprises  in  which  it 
was  proposed  to  embark.  He  did  not  believe  that  manufactures  would  ever  predomin- 
ate over  agriculture  in  the  state,  and  those  who  advocated  diversification  did  not 
wish  such  a result. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  South  Carolina  legislature,  November,  1845,  chart- 
ers for  several  companies  to  erect  cotton  factories  were  applied  for.  At  the  time 
corporations  were  somewhat  unpopular  in  the  South,  and  opposition  was  met.  Gregg 
thereupon  wrote  a pamphlet  entitled  An  £& guirjj,  into  the  Expediency  of  Granting 
LhaEters  of  Ijico^qraUon  for  M^uX^A^ilS.  Purposes  in  South  Carolina.  Copies 
were  distributed  among  the  members  of  the  legislature.  After  a sharp  struggle  the 
charters  were  granted  by  large  majorities. 35  The  Graniteville  company,  in  wnich 
Gregg  was  a large  stockholder,  was  one  of  those  chartered.  Only  the  most  substan- 
tial citizens  were  permitted  to  take  stock.36  Gregg  was  made  manager;  and  the  fact- 
ory was  soon  built  and  put  in  successful  operation.  He  was  allowed  to  carry  into 
practice  his  philanthropic  ideas  in  regard  to  the  poor  whites.  Cottages  were  built 
and  rented  to  the  operatives,  free  and  compulsory  education  established,  a church  ! 
constructed,  and  intemperance  forbidden.  No  negroes  were  employed.  The  factory 

was  one  of  the  few  in  the  South  that  continued  to  pay  dividends  during  the  hard 
years  of  1850-54.^  


35.  B*BasU  fcsiss.  X,  351.  36.  Ker  Boyce  to  Hammond,  Dec.  127W5, 

37.  BsSmli  ggn&i.  x,  351;  X?III,  78yf.;  Hunt  * 3 Merchants'  Magazine.  XXI  671 
SI-  Ingle,  Southern  Sidelights . 85.  — ~ AJU>  0,1 


, 

' 

• - , 

, • • • V 

■ 

I 


33 


Many  other,,  following  the  publication  of  Oregg's  essays,  came  forward  to  ad- 
vocate the  diversification  of  Southern  industry,  particularly  by  the  erection  of 
cotton  factories  near  the  cotton  fields.  Oovemor  Crawford,  of  Georgia,  urged  the 
legislature  to  adopt  some  plan  to  restore  the  fertility  of  the  soil  and  foster 
manufactures.33  The  Tennessee  House  of  Representatives  appointed  a select  commit- 
tee to  report  on  manufacturing  resources.33  The  state  of  Alabama  engaged  Mr.  Tuoay 
professor  in  the  State  University,  to  make  a survey  of  the  mineral  resources  of 
the  state.  The  Richmond  Whi*  published  in  1846,  the  Letters  from  the  Hon.  Ab- 
kW.rence.  to  the  Hon.  S&iliam  C.  Rive_s  of  Virginia, - which,  while  primarily  a 
Plea  against  the  repeal  of  the  tariff,  hailed  the  movement  in  the  South  for  dive* 
sification  of  industry,  and  urged  the  people  of  Virginia  to  manufacture  and  devel- 
op the  state's  mineral  resources. «■  DeBow'.s  Review,  the  first  number  of  which  ap- 
peared in  January,  1346,  lent  its  influence  to  the  cause.42  Numerous  articles  in 
the  Review  testify  to  the  growing  conviction  that  there  was  an  overproduction  of 
cotton,  and  that  the  South  should  diversify  agriculture  and  divert  capital  to  othe: 
industries.  In  South  Carolina,  1849,  an  organization  styled  the  "South  Carolina 
Institute  for  the  Promotion  of  Art,  Meohanical  Ingenuity,  and  Industry”  was  formed, 

This  organisation  was  a direct  outgrowth  of  the  movement  for  diversification  of 
Southern  industry.43 

The  interest  in  cotton  manufactures  spread  to  the  Ohio  valley.  One  of  the 
38*  Register,  LXIX,  162. 

39.  Ibid,.  LXIX,  400. 

his  First  S-\^ias5.404-  **“*  later  *«"  ^logist  and  issued 

41.  Aleo  published  as  a pamphlet,  1846. 

was  begun, ^which  «s\“uel 

43  * fieBow'.e  Review,  VIII,  276;  X,  123. 


, 


34 

moat  active  advocates  was  Hamilton  Smith,  a wealthy  lawyer  and  business  man  of 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  who  had  acquired  large  holdings  in  coal  lands  near  Cannelton 
Indiana.  In  1047,  he  wrote  a series  of  articles  for  the  Louisville  Journal  demon- 
st rating  the  advantages  of  coal  over  water  power  in  cotton  factories,  and  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  Ohio  valley  over  the  East  as  a seat  for  such  factories  by  reason  of 
proximity  to  the  cotton  fields.  His  articles  were  widely  copied  in  Southern  and 
Western  newspapers,  and  some  of  his  letters  were  inserted  in  the  Manchester,  Eng- 
land, Guardian.  In  the  following  year,  Smith  and  several  other  public  spirited 
citizens  of  Kentucky,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  and  Louisiana,  being  desirous  of  prov- 
ing their  faith  by  works,  organized  a company  which  constructed  a model  factory  at 
Cannelton.  Charles  T.  James  of  Rhode  Island,  the  most  successful  builder  of  steam 
cotton  factories  in  the  "nixed  States,  was  interested  in  the  project,  and  superin- 
tended the  ereetion  of  the  factory,  a journal,  the  Cannelton  Economist,  was  es- 
tablished to  conduct  a campaign  in  the  behalf  of  manufactures.44 

The  agitation  in  behalf  of  building  cotton  factories  received  encouragement 
from  the  fact  that  considerable  capital  was  actually  being  invested  in  the  new 
branch  of  industry  and  seemed  to  be  yielding  good  profits.  All  through  the  1040s 


the  journals  of  the  South  recorded  at  frequent  intervals  the  establishment  of  fac- 
tories, especially  cotton  factories,  in  that  section.  In  1843  the  Baltimore  Am- 
erican stated  that  in  North  Carolina  a revolution  had  been  effected  in  the  trade  o 
cotton  yarns  within  a few  years/Vus.  Renter,  in  1345,  remarked  the  number  of 
cotton  factories  being  erected  along  side  the  cotton  fields,  and  prophesied  that 


44.  8«Bo£j.  Se&SK,  90  ffj  VI,  75  f.:  VIII,  456-61;  Weetem  Joum.T  -nd 

ImL,  II.  139;  Hamilton  Smith,  The  Relative  Oo_st  of  Ste»  and  Water  Power , the  111 - 
inoi,  .Coat.  Field,,  end  tto  Advantage,  offered  bj,  the  We^ , particularly  on  the 
'Pl’Tv.  -Ohio,  for  Manu f act u ra a . 

45*  Quoted  in  Niles » Register,  LXIV,  72. 


. • 


' 

, 


« 

. 

' 


, 

* ■ , 

, 

. 

• • . 

. 


, , 

1 

t 


•- 

' 

, 

. , 


35 


in  a few  years  the  Southern  states  would  supply  coarse  cotton  clothing  for  mil- 
46 

lions.  In  the  tariff  debates  of  1344  and  1846,  congressmen  from  North  Carolina 
arid  Geor-ia,  particularly,  invited  attention  to  the  rapid  development  of  cotton 
and  other  manufactures  in  their  states.4^  The  numerous  acts  incorporating  manu- 
facturing companies  passed  during  these  years  by  the  legislatures  of  states  which 
had  not  yet  enacted  general  incorporation  laws  would  seem  to  testify  to  a develop- 
ment of  manufacturing.  During  the  last  few  years  of  the  decade  and  the  first  few 


years  of  the  next,  the  accounts  of  new  factories,  built  or  in  process  of  building, 
became  more  and  more  frequent;  and  the  development  began  to  attract  notice  in  the 
North.  Said  Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine,  1849:  "We  seldom  take  up  a paper  publish- 
ed in  the  Southern  and  Western  States  of  the  Union,  that  does  not  contain  some  new 
development  of  their  manufacturing  enterprise .”48 


By  1849  the  movement  to  “bring  the  spindles  to  the  cotton"  had  become  popular 
in  all  quarters  of  the  South.  According  to  DeBow's  Reviev/,  every  month  added  more 
and  more  to  the  interest  shorn  in  manufactures. The  next  year  Hamilton  Smith 
wrote:  “For  the  last  two  years,  one  of  the  most  prominent  topics  of  discussion  in 
the  newspapers  of  the  South  and  West  has  been,  not  whether  cotton  mills  could  or 

could  not  be  operated  at  home,  but  when,  where,  and  by  whom,  they  should  be  put  in 
operation.”^0 


The  people  of  the  South  became  firmly  convinced  that  their  section  had  rare 
46.  Niles1  aasi.Bj.sr,  LXVIII,  87,  April  12. 


47.  gon£.  Olsbe  29  Oong.,  1 Sess.,  991,  Jonss  of  Ga.,  in  the  House:  28  Cong, 

ie’’of PS*'n  the  H?""*  2-  1 Appx,  108,  Mo- 

, 512,  Berrien,  of  Ga.,  in  the 


1 Se 

Du f fie,  of  S.  C.,  in  the  Senate;  28  Cong.,  1 Se 
Senate. 


48.  XVIII,  227. 
the  South  and  West  h 
(1850). 


C^.  XXIII,  247.  «*The  progress  of  manufacturing  industry  at 
as  been  very  rapid  in  the  past  two  years.”  Ibid. . XXII,  646, 


49 o VII,  454. 

50.  geBow’s  Review f VIII,  550, 


36 


advantages  for  the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods,  and  could  compete  successfully 
with  New  England.  Statements  were  frequently  made  and  rarely  contradicted  that 
mills  already  in  operation  were  earning  profits  of  from  15  to  20  per  cent.  The 
representations  of  Gregg,  Hamilton  Smith,  and  others,  relative  to  the  advantages 
possessed  by  the  South,  seemed  sound.  The  most  authoritative  statements  were 
those  or  General  Charles  T.  James,  of  Rhode  Island.  James  claimed  to  have  super- 
intended the  erection  of  more  than  one-eighth  of  the  cotton  spindles  in  the  United 
States.  He  had  shown  his  faith  in  the  South  and  West  by  taking  stock  in  the  steam 
factory  at  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  and  the  one  at  Cannelton,  Indiana.51  Lead- 
ers in  the  diversification  movement  appealed  to  him  to  give  inforaation  which  m 
might  help  to  arouse  interest  and  educate  the  people  in  the  subject.  In  response 
he  wrote,  1349,  a pamphlet  entitled  Practical  Hints  on  the  Comparative  Cost  and 
Productiveness  of  the  Oultuj£  of  Cotton  .and  the  Cost  and  Productiveness  of  its 
MaSHfeture,  etc.  The  pamphlet  was  widely  read  and  quoted,  as  were  a number  of 
articles  which  he  wrote.  He  compared  the  great  profits  of  cotton  manufacturers 
with  planters'  profits;  undertook  to  demonstrate  the  superiority  of  steam-power, 
which  the  South  must  use,  over  water-power;  and  dwelt  upon  the  advantages  the  Soutl 
possessed  in  having  fresh  raw  material  at  hand  and  the  saving  in  freight  charges 
to  be  effected  by  establishing  the  factories  near  the  fields.  He  gave  the  assur- 
ance that  no  great  reserve  of  capital  was  necessary  to  embark  in  the  business.  Fac 
tories  could  be  started  on  credit,  end  capital  would  accumulate  - just  as  had  been 
the  case  in  New  England.  No  fears  need  be  entertained  in  regard  to  labor  supply: 
if  the  factories  should  oe  opened  the  labor  and  skill  would  be  at  hand.  The  South 
would  not  experience  the  difficulties  in  effecting  this  revolution  in  its  industry 
which  New  England  had  encountered  thirty  years  before;  for  she  could  start  with  the 
best  machinery,  and  could  avoid  the  mistakes  made  in  the  North.52 


51.  Review,  IX,  671  f .;  Hunt  '_s  Merchants ' Magazine.  XXII,  453. 

Published  8J.90  in  DeBow' 9 Review  VII  171-6-  77n-->.  vttt  -inn  n / 

556-60.  The  eub.tence  ie  £££& xk  ^-5^2-  ' ^ 


. 

’ 

' < . • 

• < • D 1ft  ft*  o • 1 ' 

. 

' ’ < :-  ■■■,’>  ' C tr  •/,  ‘ 

• ' ' . 

• • ;■  qi  .! 

-•  --  • . v: .7. 

< 


• • • ; - 


. 


, • .. 


■ : • • or.  - 7 t 


■'  «•  '•  V-  ...  j, 


* ' i •;  0.:.' 


* ' ; ...  ) ' , . Jr  t 

• • 

:•  , , ' 


< 


•• 


37 


James'  s statements  were  violently  attacked  in  the  New  England  press. 53  A 
warm  debate  was  conducted  by  James  and  Amos  A.  Lawrence,  a prominent  Massachusetts 
cotton  manufacturer,  through  the  columns  of  Hunt » s M^hanta'  Magazine.  Lawrence 
said  the  South  could  not  manufacture  because  she  lacked  capital,  and  factories 
could  not  be  successful  if  built  with  borrowed  money.  He  contended  that  James  had 
underestimated  the  profits  of  cotton  planters  and  overestimated  those  of  cotton 
manufacturers.  He  controverted  James's  statements  in  regard  to  the  superiority  of 
steam-power  over  water-power.  William  Gregg  and  Hamilton  Smith  joined  in  the  con- 
troversy in  support  of  James. 54  The  Southern  press  thought  Lawrence's  articles 
were  dictated  by  self-interest,  and  that  James  had  completely  prostrated  his  re- 
viewer. The  New  England  raanuf acturers  were  represented  as  being  hostile  to  the 
new  enterprises  in  the  South.  James  himself  wrote;  -For  years  the  Northern  press 
has  been  loud  and  frequent  in  recommendations  to  the  South,  to  enter  the  field  of 

enterprise  end  manufacture  her  own  staples—;  but  Northern  Manufacturers  have  of- 
fered no  encouragement  - - - ,"55 


But  the  wide  spread  interest  manifested  in  manufacturing  during  these  years 
and  the  welcome  given  every  evidence  of  industrial  enterprise  were  not  due  solely 
to  the  prevalent  belief  that  there  was  an  overproduction  of  cotton,  and  that  spin- 
ning the  yarn  and  weaving  the  cloth  would  yield  a higher  profit  upon  capital  in- 
vested than  did  the  production  of  the  raw  material.  Manufactures  were  approved  as 

promising  an  avenue  of  escape  from  an  ill-balanced  economic  system  and  its  atten- 
dant  evils,  social  and  political. 

In  the  first  pluoe,  hone  manufactures  would  free  the  South  from  dependence 
upon  the  North  for  numerous  articles  which  might  be  produced  at  home;  just  as  di- 


53.  DeBow^s  Review,  IX,  553,  quoting  the  Mew  York  Herald. 

JScPff  .XXI’  °28"33i  XXTI'  26‘35*  184-95;  290-311;  107-8;  XXIII 
55.  Hunt's.  XXII,  309. 


* 

. 

‘ 

' 

. 

, n . ; oil.  , • 


. ; 

■ 


• ‘ • > ;o 

. 

■ • • . fl_ 


» 

, 


; . - 


, 


38 

versified  agriculture  would  free  it  from  dependence  upon  the  West  for  horses, 
mules,  pork,  and  bacon;  or  as  direct  trade  would  free  it  from  commercial  dependence 
upon  the  East.  Dependence  upon  other  sections  of  the  Union  wa3  felt  to  be  "degrad- 
ing  vassal  age ",  a subject  for  mortification  and  humiliation;  and  because  of  it  the 
North  was  being  enriched  and  the  South  impoverished. 

Nortnern  men  were  constantly  boasting  of  the  superiority  of  their  section  of 
the  Union;  every  foreign  traveller  drew  a picture  of  contrast.  The  wealth  and 
population  of  the  North,  the  size,  prosperity,  and  attractiveness  of  its  cities 
and  towns,  the  mileage,  cost,  and  efficiency  o'  the  railroads  and  canals,  the  man- 
ufactures and  mines,  ships  and  shipping,  the  farms,  the  price  of  land  and  the  me- 
thods of  agriculture,  the  homes,  shops,  and  places  of  amusement,  the  schools  and 
colleges,  number  of  students  and  percentage  of  illiteracy,  newspapers  and  their 
circulation,  the  development  of  literature  and  art-all  were  contrasted  with  those 
of  the  South,  and  almost  invariably  to  the  advantage  of  the  North.  It  was  pointed 
out  that  Southerners  depended  upon  Northern  shipping,  bought  Northern  manufactured 
goods,  flocked  to  Northern  watering  places,  sent  their  sons  to  Northern  colleges, 
read  Northern  literature,  and  admired  Northern  art.  The  conclusion  was  that  the 
North  nad  reached  a higher  degree  of  civilization,  prosperity,  and  comfort.  The 
disparity  was  generally  credited  to  superior  industry  and  enterprise  in  the  North 
and  to  the  blighting  effects  of  slavery  in  the  South.  ^Southern  people  admitted  the 
contrast— it  was  impossible  not  to  do  so.  They  generally,  by  no  means  without  ex- 
ception, admitted  that  the  North  was  more  prosperous.  When  John  Forsyth,  in  his 
lecture  on  "The  North  and  the  South,"  asked  the  question,  "Why  is  it  that  the  North 
has  so  far  outstripped  the  South  in  commerce,  the  growth  of  its  cities,  internal 
eve^opment,  and  the  arts  of  living?", ^6  he  but  made  an  admission  that  Southerners 
commonly  made.  J.  H.  Hammond  wrote:  "It  has  so  often  been  asserted,  that  in  popu- 

lation and  its  ratio  of  increase,  in  wealth,  aggregate  and  average,  and  the  facil- 
56.  DeBow* s Review.  XVII,  365. 


< 

• 

, 

• . 

. 

( t 

K 

< 

f 

c 

1 

< 

, 

t 

( 

. < ' 

, 

1 * ' 

« 

* . hcoi  f t •-  i 


. 


' 

» 

. . 

. 


39 


i-fcy  of  its  accumulation,  in  industry,  intelligence  and  enterprise,  the  North  ie 
vastly  in  advance  of  the  South,  and  by  consequence  that  it  is  the  strong  and  pro 
tecting,  while  the  South  is  the  weak  and  dependent  section  — all  these  things 
have  been  so  long  and  so  generally  asserted  in  the  South  as  well  as  the  North, 
that  they  have  gained  almost  universal  credence."^ 


Now  this  was  not  a situation  to  be  viewed  with  equanimity  in  any  case  by  the 
loyal  and  progressive  Southerner,  and  his  discontent  was  augmented  because  of  his 
belief  that  the  North  was  prospering  at  the  expense  of  the  South.  The  feeling  of 
a large  element  in  the  South  in  regard  to  the  matter  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
following  typical  quotation  from  an  Alabama  newspaper: 

it  f0rA!i,r^+nt'  thS  iN°rth  fattens  and  Srows  rich  upon  the  South.  We  depend  upon 
it  for  our  ent.ro  auppUeo.  we  purchase  all  our  luxuries  and  neoes.aries  fron  L, 
North.  . . . with  us,  every  branch  and  pursuit  in  life,  every  trade  profession 
and  occupation  is  dependent  upon  the  North;  for  instate,  the  Mo rth^ners  abuse’ 

n+Un°!  SlTry  md  slaveholders,  yet  our  slaves  are  clothed  with  Northern 
and  other***  ?°°  8’  Morfchern  hats  md  sho0s.  work  with  Northern  hoes,  ploughs 

r3rr-Ki srws-stroS 

8 places,  . . . The  aggressive  acts  upon  his  rights  and  his  orocertv 

vessels11  his^product^are^arried^i^m^^et^^^^^tt01^^  W^'SSrtE™  j 

his  sugar  is  crushed  and  preserved  by  Northern  mac  hi  ner^-8  Northern  Sin* 

by  Northern  steamboats,  his  mail  s . ®hd?®ry’  hl8  rivers  are  navigated 

fed  with  Northern  bacon  beef  flour  A-.fi"  U in  r^nern.  8i:ase3»  his  negroes  are 
axe,  and  a Yankee  clock’sits  unon  hi«  « hlS  i.®14  is  cleared  with  a Northern 

ern  broom,  an^  is  covered  l v “tel-p}acei  hia  floor  is  swept  by  a North- 
Northern  looking]  n4..  * a Nortnern  carpet;  and  his  wife  dresses  herself  by  a 

ter  receives  her  «oliah  It ’ ’w^+v,8011  13  educated  in  a Northern  college,  his  daugh. 
medical  college  his  schools  ®fthem  fe“in«fyi  his  doctor  graduates  at  a Northern 
nished  with^Northern  i:v,::i18on^ean5nou1n:^58NOrthera 

Some  of  those  who  preached  diversification  of  industry  not  only  affimed,  as 
anti  tarift  men  for  that  matter,  that  the  North  was  growing  prosperous, 
wealthy,  and  powerful  at  the  South's  expense,  but  demonstrated  why  it  would  contin- 

Simm sf^aTr^O  2|fiAprZ  ^’r  2,j5'„Cf ' H-  Hwamond  to  7/m.  Gilmore 

, a 7,  tv,  Apr.  b,  I049.  J.  H.  Hammond  Pacers. 

aeiivered  defers  the  CiAUene  of 


• . ► 


< < 


< 


40 


ue  to  do  so  as  long  as  the  latter  persevered  in  her  unwise  application  of  labor. 
They  laid  down  the  general  propositions  that  an  agricultural  people  is  always  ex- 
ploited by  an  industrial  people,  and  that  wealth  tends  to  flow  toward  industrial 
canters.  In  the  opinion  of  M.  Tarver,  it  wa9  because  she  parted  with  her  staples 
prime  cost  and  purchased  almost  all  of  her  necessary  supplies  from  abroad  at 
cost  plus  profits,  that  the  South  was  "growing  poorer  while  the  rest  of  the  world 
is  growing  rich,  for  it  is  easy  for  the  world  to  enrich  itself  upon  such  a cus- 
tomer on  such  terms. "59  Governor  J.  H.  Hammond,  who  in  hi  3 address  before  the 
South  Carolina  Institute  set  himself  the  task  of  showing  philosophically  why  a 
people  of  one  occupation  can  never  attain  prosperity  and  influence,  thought  one 

industry  was  not  enough  to  absorb  all  the  genius  and  draw  out  all  the  energies 

60 

oi  a people.  According  to  the  Richmond  Enquirer.  "Commercial  and  manufacturing 
nations  levy  a heavier  tax  on  their  dependents  than  any  despot  ever  exacted  from 
subject  provinces.  Labor  employed  in  commerce  or  manufactures,  in  the  general, 
nays  t^ree  or  four  times  as  much  as  farming  labor,  and  in  the  exchange  of  one  for 
the  other,  the  fanner  gives  the  manufacturer  three  or  four  hours*  labor  for  one."^ 
Similar  was  the  reasoning  of  F.  A.  P.  Barnard,  of  Alabama  State  University:  "The 
kinds  of  labor  in  which  the  element  of  skill  most  predominates  are  the  moat  pro- 
ductive. Therefore,  the  wealth  of  a people  depends  as  much  upon  the  direction 
given  to  labor  as  upon  the  amount  of  labor  employed.  An  agricultural  people  might 
be  rich  but  only  in  the  case  Nature  is  lavish  in  her  bounties;  but  "riches  thus 

bestowed,  while  the  means  of  greater  riches  remain  unemployed,  will  never  give  con- 
tentment ."62 


But  no  matter  how  the  North  reaped  profit  from  Southern  industry,  there  could 


J. 


59.  DeBow* a Review.  Ill,  203. 

XJliiL* » VIII,  503ff . Cf . Hammond  to 
H.  Hammond  Papers. 

6l.  Quoted  in  DeBow*  s Review,  XX,  392. 


William  Gilmore  Simms,  Dec.  20,  1849, 

See  aho  Fi  , Socictey^  fo  v rha  C-* c , ‘jffi?.  ffi/TT 


< 

* 

. *|  Q 

f 

« 

* • 


, 


[ ■■ 

. 

’ 


, • 


' 

. 

. .\i  u‘  ; " 

•v 


. 


. 


. 


41 


be  no  doubt  of  the  advantages  of  retaining  the  profit  at  home.  Everything  that 
manufactures  had  done  for  the  North  and  for  England,  they  would  do  for  the  South. 
Her  stagnant  cities  would  grow,  and  new  ones  spring  into  existence.  Surplus  cap- 
linl  no  longer  would  be  under  the  necessity  of  seeking  investment  elsewhere.  Rail- 
roads would  be  built,  and  steamships  launched  upon  the  rivers;  dykes  would  be 
built,  and  marshes  drained;  and  capital  would  be  forthcoming  to  develop  the  miner- 
al resources,  which  the  people  of  the  South  were  beginning  to  realize  she  possess- 
ed. For  the  planter  and  the  farmer  a home  market  would  be  provided,  not  subject 
to  the  fluctuations  of  the  foreign  market.  Diversified  agriculture  would  be  stim- 
ulated; and  the  planter  would  no  longer  have  to  resort  to  distant  states  for  his 
mules,  pork,  com,  and  h«y.^3 


Nor  did  the  proponents  of  diversification  overtook  the  social  benefits  to 
ooce  with  new  industries.  With  the  development  of  manufactures,  towns  and  village 
would  spring  up  among  the  scattered  population.  More  and  better  schools  could  be 
est  ibliehed,  for,  after  all,  the  chief  reason  for  backwardness  in  educational  pro- 
gress in  the  South  was  the  sparsity  of  population.  Churches  could  be  brought  with- 
in  .he  ranch  of  a greater  number.  Colleges  could  be  supported  at  home,  ar.d  South- 
ern parents  would  no  longer  be  under  the  necessity  of  sending  their  sons  north  for 
a good  college  training,  with  the  increased  wealth  and  population  which  manufac- 
ture, would  bring,  the  South  could  adequately  support  her  cm  press  end  literature, 
Said  Hammond,  after  having  given  a glowing  description  of  the  revivifying  effects 
of  manufactures  upon  his  state:  '•!  am  not  conjuring  uP  ideal  visions  to  excite  ths 
imagination.  All  these  things  have  been  actually  done.  They  have  been,  in  our  own 
times,  and  under  our  own  eyes,  carried  out  end  made  legible,  living,  self-multiply- 
ing and  gi ant-growing  facts  in  Old  England  and  New  England;  and  they  have  been 
mainly  accomplished  by  the  incalculable  profits  which  their  genius  and  enterprise 


haVe  realized  on  the  product  of  our  labor."4 


article,  "Should  the  Loom ^w.eTo*  th^CotUn^rthe^C^t8^®1* ' “■*  ™d  m 

Sin  Journal  and  Civilian.  T.  319-™?.  * Cott<,n  00  to  the  Loom,"  West- 


■ 

, 

. 

' 


. 


' ■ ) I ’ ! 


. 

, . . i 

: ■ 

. 


■ ; • 


i \ • . S 


. 


42 


But  the  prophets  of  a new  order  met  prejudices  against  manufactures  which  the} 
could  not  wholly  dispel.  Politicians  had  too  often  described  the  cities  and  fact- 
ory towns  of  the  North  notbeds  of  poverty,  ignorance,  vice,  crime,  and  unrelig- 
ion, the  seat  of  abolition  and  the  numerous  isms  with  which  the  land  was  afflicted, 
Manufactures  had  been  too  frequently  described  as  incompatible  with  liberty,  free- 
dom, culture,  and  virtue;  and  agriculture  glorified  as  the  only  industry  capable 
of  producing  a 1 iberty-lovir.g  and  chivalrous  race.6*  Often  the  proponents  of  di- 
versification considered  it  necessary  to  give  the  assurance  that  no  large  towns, 
but  only  vi  l age s , woulo  be  created;  and  that  there  was  no  danger  of  manufactures 
ever  predominating  over  agriculture  in  the  planting  states. 66 /too,  it  must  be  no- 
ted, there  was  a feeling  all  too  prevalent  in  the  South  that  manual  labor,  and  par- 
ticularly mechanical  labor,  was  degrading  and  beneath  the  dignity  of  white  men. 
Young  men  of  intelligence  find  ability,  who  might  have  become  skill  fed  mechanics, 
managers,  or  superintendents  of  factories,  felt  that  they  would  lose  caste  by  en- 
tering a cotton  factory.  Such  employment  was  less  becoming  gentlemen  than  agricul- 
ture, the  professions,  or  even  the  mercantile  business.  The  dignity  of  labor  had 
to  be  proclaimed.  Few  more  scathing  denunciations  of  Southern  social  standards,  as 
well  as  of  the  inertia,  lethargy,  and  lack  of  foresight  of  Southern  men,  can  be 
found  than  some  of  those  uttered  by  Southern  men  who  were  trying  to  point  the  path 
of  progress  end  urge  their  people  along  it.6? 

One  argument  in  behalf  of  manufactures  by  no  means  infrequently  used  was  that 
they  would  give  employment  to  the  "poor  whites-*  The  poor  whites  were  the  non- 
64.  DeBowls  Review,  VIII,  516™ ZVllZ'nUtofr,  0*.  Cit..,  Chs.  XIX -XV. 

65-  Ibid.,  VIII,  503;  XI,  127;  XIII,  49;  XVII,  178;  So.  Cu.ar.  Rev.,  VIII,  142. 
66.  EeBow^e  Review,  VIII,  522;  XI,  130,  132. 

sssra.. 


43 


slaveholding  whites  of  the  black  belts,  the  hill  country,  and  the  pine  barrens. 
Some  of  them,  upon  worn  out  and  abandoned  plantations  or  their  small  hill  farms, 
engaged  in  agriculture  in  a feeble  competition  with  the  planters.  Others  obtained 
a precarious  subsistence  by  doing  occasional  jobs  for  the  planters,  by  hunting  and 
fishing,  by  begging  or  stealing  from  the  slaveholders,  or  by  trading  with  the 
slaves  end  inducing  them  to  plunder  for  their  benefit,  '’’hey  were  not  enployed  by 
the  planters  to  work  in  the  cotton  fields,  and  would  have  been  unwilling  to  work 
with  the  slaves  had  opportunity  been  afforded  them.  As  a class  they  produced  less 
then  they  consumed,  and  thus  were  a burden  upon  society.  Their  ignorance  was  as 
general  as  their  poverty;  vice  and  crime  were  common  among  them.  The  number  of 
poor  whites  is  difficult  to  estimate.  In  1849  Governor  Hammond  estimated  at  50,Q0( 
the  number  of  those  in  South  Carolina  whose  industry  was  not  "adequate  to  procure 
them,  honestly,  such  support,  as  every  white  person  in  this  country  is,  end  feels 
himself  entitled  to."68  William  Gregg  put  the  number  at  125,000,  more  than  one- 
third  of  the  white  population  of  the  state.69  The  number  in  other  Southern  states 
was  probably  somewhat  less  in  proportion  to  population.  Char#,  T.  James  said 
there  were  thousands  of  poor  whites.70  James  Martin,  of  northern  Alabama,  spoke  of 
a "large  poor  population  almost  without  employment."71  Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine 
referred  to  them  as  a "mass  of  unemployed  white  labor .”72 

Mmy  of  the  advocetee  cf  manufactures  believed  the  employment  of  this  olaas  o: 
unfortunates  desirable  from  every  viewpoint.  They  were  said  to  be  more  than  glad 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  work,  ever,  at  most  moderate  wages,  e.t  la- 
bor deemed  respectable  for  white  person.;  and,  when  ao  employed,  to  quickly  assume 
the  industrious  habits  of  Northern  operatives.  By  employment  in  factories,  they 
would  be  brought  together  in  villages,  where  the  influence  of  church  and  school 
could  reach  them.  In  this  way  and  only  in  this  way  could  they  be  elevated  from 
68.  DeBow^  geview,  VIII,  518.  '""^'.'ibid.,  XI , 133. 

70.  I£id.,  VIII,-  558.  71.  Ibig^  xxiv,  383 . 72t 


44 


their  degradation  to  a state  of  comparative  comfort  and  independence  end  social 
responsibility.  From  the  viewpoint  of  the  prosperity  end  power  of  the  community 
at  large,  the  employment  of  the  poor  whites  would  be  of  incalculable  benefit:  it 
would  transform  thousands  of  non-productive  into  productive  citizens  and  enormous- 
ly increpse  wealth  of  the  region.  The  number  of  this  class  in  some  states  was 
said  to  be  sufficient  to  work  up  into  goods  all  the  cotton  grown  therein.  This 
product  would  be  a clear  gain;  for  the  employment  of  the  poor  whites  in  factories 
would  withdraw  little  or  no  labor  from  the  production  of  the  raw  materiel.  How,  it 
was  asked,  could  the  South  keep  pace  with  the  North  in  the  race  for  power  and 
wealth,  when  so  large  a part  of  the  total  possible  labor  force  was  comparatively 

idle?73 


Many  thoughtful  Southerners  regretted  that  all  the  capital,  enterprise,  and  in- 
telligence  in  the  South  was  employed  in  directing  slave  labor  to  the  almost  com- 
plete neglect  of  a large  part  of  the  white  population.74  Thomas  P.  Beveraux,  a 
large  slaveholder  of  North  Carolina,  thought  it  the  great  evil  of  slavery  that  it 
rendered  a mass  of  white  producing  ability  more  than  unproductive;  and  there  is  ev- 
idence indicating  that  many  shared  his  opinion. 7>  But  whether  slavery  was  respon- 
sible for  the  existence  of  the  poor  white  class  or  not,  its  opponents  in  the  North 


end  elsewhere  charged  it  with  that  responsibility;  and  it  would  seem  that  the  de- 
fenders of  the  institution  should  have  welcomed  every  opportunity  for  remedying  the 
evxl  and  proving  the  charge  unfounded.  Too  many  slaveholders,  however,  opposed 
manufactures  on  the  very  ground  that  they  would  aid  in  developing  a class  conscious 
ness  among  white  labor,  which  would  be  hostile  to  slavery. 

In  fact  it  was  already  evident  that  such  a class  consciousness  was  developing, 
particularly  in  the  cities  end  towns.  It  manifested  itself  in  a movement  to  drive 
7^.  As  notes  oB-h.,  74.  DeBow*  s Review.  XI,  135, 

T^Dever^tOfHemmono,  April  17,  1850,  J.  H.  Hgnmond  Papers.  Of.  So.  jjgg.. 


‘ 


■■  • : i 

t Mt' 

+ L,  • • 

* 

* 

■ ’ - ' • ,s  • 

I j 3 W , If 

•'-■■■ 


: , ! 

- 

, 

1 .0  ' 

■ ' • 


' t • . 

' 1 


' 1 ■ ■ ( 

1 

. " • ' : / . 


* * . . 


• • 

, 


45 


the  slaves  from  the  oities  and  from  mechanical  employments,  and  restrict  them  to 
agriculture.  In  1849  C.  G.  Memminger  wrote  Hammond  that  the  opinion  wa3  gaining 
ground  in  Charleston  and  even  in  the  low  country,  that  slaves  should  be  excluded 

I 

from  mechanical  pursuits,  and  their  places  filled  by  whites;  and  that  there  would 
soon  be  a formidable  party  on  the  subject.70  Several  years  earlier,  a bill  had  been 
drafted  and  presented  to  the  North  Carolina  Legislature  to  limit  the  employment  of 
slaves  in  mechanical  callings,  but  had  been  met  and  defeated  by  the  objection  that 
it  interfered  with  the  rights  of  the  slave  owners;  an  act  of  the  Georgia  Legislator 
December  27,  1845,  forbade  negro  mechanics  to  make  contracts.77  In  the  cities  there 

was  constant  friction  between  the  white  stevedores,  porters,  draymen,  and  mechanics 

78  70 

and  the  negroes.  Sverywhere  there  was  opposition  to  slaves  learning  trades. 

The  slaveholders  feared  this  self  assertion  of  white  labor;  for,  as  Memminger 

put  it,  were  the  negro  mechanics  and  operatives  driven  from  the  cities,  whites 

would  take  their  places,  everyone  would  have  a vote,  and  all  would  be  abolitionists 

Those  urging  manufactures,  he  thought,  were  aiding  and  abetting  the  free  labor 

party,  which  was  the  only  one  from  which  danger  to  slavery  was  to  be  apprehended. 80 

General  A.  H.  Brisbane,  who  was  leading  in  the  agitation  in  behalf  of  manufactures 

in  South  Carolina,  and  who  was  instrumental  in  founding  a mechanics  institute  in 

Charleston,  complained  of  the  opposition  he  met  at  every  turn  from  the  slaveholders 

of  Charleston  and  the  seaboard.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  some  slaveholders  thought  more  danger  was  to  be  apprehend- 
ed from  the  poor  whites  under  existing  conditions  than  if  brought  together  in  cot- 

76.  Memminger  to  Hammond,  April  28,  1849,  J.  H.  Hammond  Papers. 

77.  Bevereaux  to  Hammond,  April  17,  1850,  ibid. 

78.  DeBow* s Review.  XXVI,  600(extract  from  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Negro 
Population  of  the  South  Carolina  Legislature) ; ibid..  XXX,  67-77. 

79.  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Cotton  Kingdom.  I,  98;  Lyell,  A Second  Visit  to  the  United 
States,  II,  36,  81-83.  And  see  below,  pp.  230-232. 

80.  Memminger  to  Hammond,  April  28,  1849,  J.  H.  Hammond  Papers. 

81.  Brisbane  to  Hammond,  Oct.  8,  1849,  ibid. : cf.  Gregg  to  Hammond,  Dec.  1,  1848. 


. 


*1'  ■ 


. Y 


- . . . 


. 


• - ::  u . 


. 

. . 

' • : j >, 


* 


•-  . * k. 


- 


. . . 


» 


46 

ton  factories  with  constant  employment  and  adequate  remuneration.  In  the  latter 
case  they  v/ouid  see  that  their  occupation  depended  upon  the  preservation  of  a sys- 
tem necessary  for  the  production  of  cotton.  In  the  opinion  of  Thomas  P.  Devereaux, 
if  a notion  should  arise  among  the  poor  whites  that  slavery  barred  them  of  a mar- 
ket for  their  produce  end  hindered  the  advancement  of  their  children,  the  slave- 
holders would  have  an  enemy  in  their  midst  greatly  more  to  be  feared  than  abolitior 
preachers.  * Brisbane  believed  it  better  for  white  labor  to  develop  in  the  South, 
where  it  could  see  its  dependence  upon  black  labor,  than  in  the  North,  where  it 


could  not,  and  would,  therefore,  be  the  fanatical  enemy  of  slavery. 

Over  against  the  discussion  of  the  desirability  of  providing  employment  for 
the  poor  whites  most  be  set  the  discussion  of  the  practicability  of  employing  slave) 
in  factories.  During  the  period  of  overproduction  of  cotton  there  was  a belief 
that  slave  labor  engaged  in  producing  the  staple  was  redundant,  and  that  it  was  de- 
sirable to  divert  some  of  it  to  other  industries.  The  division  of  slave  labor  be- 


tween the  factory  end  the  field  would  increase  the  profits  of  agriculture  and  en- 
hance the  value  of  slaves. slave  labor  was  tried  in  several  cotton  factories,  no- 
tably the  DeKalb  end  the  Saluda  factory,  both  of  South  Carolina;  and  the  alleged 
success  of  the  experiments  was  cited  as  demonstrating  that,  should  agriculture  be- 
come oversupplied  with  labor,  manufacturing  would  open  channels  to  draw  away  the 
84 

surplus.  From  some  of  the  comments  made,  it  is  hard  to  escape  the  conclusion  that 
many  Southerners  were  interested  in  manufactures  only  so  long  ae  it  appeared  pos- 
sinle  to  conduct  them  with  slave  labor;  when  experience  finally  demonstrated  the 
superiority  of  white  labor,  their  interest  abated.  Other  men  opposed  from  the  star 

-on  n? VDrBfeaUJ  Hmond»  APril  17,  1850,  J.  H.  Hammond  Papers;  cf.  W.  B.  Fodg. 

Bow's  Lv  7%  ’ N°V*  2°’  l85°’  m*-  S£V.,  XXVI  447;  De- 

goy's  Review.  Ill,  188.  VIII,  25.  


83.  Richmond  J7hi£,  Sspt.  1?,  1851;  DeBow's  Review.  XII,  182-5. 

mumSSZtern  Si;  aja- j-aygiff-  - »•  m 


47 


the  employment  of  slaves  in  factories.  It  would  weaken  slavery;  for,  ea  one  said, 
•'Whenever  a slave  is  made  a mechanic,  ho  is  more  than  half  freed  . . ,H®5  More- 
over, were  slaves  employed,  white  could  not  be;  for  whites  would  not  work  side  by 
side  or  in  competition  with  slaves. 

The  movement  to  bring  the  spindles  to  the  cotton  was  almost  synchronous  with 
the  period  of  acrimonious  sectional  controversy  over  the  extension  of  slavery 
which  began  with  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  continued  until  the  general  accept- 
ance of  the  Compromise  of  1850  gave  a temporary  respite.  Southern  men  were  becom- 
ing dismayed  at  the  growing  strength  and  vigor  of  the  attacks  upon  slavery.  The 
growing  disparity  of  the  sections  in  numbers  and  power  was  too  striking  and  too 
ominous  not  to  excite  most  serious  concern.  The  old  political  alliance  of  South 
and  West  could  no  longer  be  depended  upon,  and  especially  not  in  the  case  of  the 

slavery  issue,  to  thwart  the  antagonistic  policies  of  the  North.  Leaders,  from 

* 

the  great  Calhoun  down,  caet  about  for  means  of  maintaining  Southern  rights  and 
preserving  Southern  equality  in  the  Union.  A large  minority  of  the  people  in  the 
South,  in  one  state  a majority,  were  convinced  by  1850  that  the  Southern  states 
should  withdraw  from  the  Union.  Widespread  discussion  of  secession  caused  consi- 
deration to  be  given  to  the  preparedness  of  the  South  for  separate  nationality. 

The  intemperateness  of  the  sectional  quarrel  and,  especially,  the  necessity  for 
augmenting  the  political  power  of  the  South,  whether  to  maintain  her  rights  in  the 
Union  or  her  independence  out  of  it,  gave  a powerful  impetus  to  all  movements  for 
promoting  the  economic  development  of  the  South,  indluding  the  encouragement  of 
manufacturing. 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  encouraging  home  manufactures  which  were  suggested 
by  political  necessities  or  purposes  took  several  forms.  One  frequently  employed 
was  well  illustrated  by  an  editorial  in  the  Richmond  Dispatch.  After  one  of  the 

85-  DgWa  Review,  VIII,  518 . Cf.  Barnard,  o£.  cit.,  23. 


' 

, •.  .f  , 

* 

' 


« 


* 


. 

, 

t 

, 

. 

» 

- 

. 

, 

c 

, 


< * 


. 


48 


instances  of  interference  with  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  by  the  peo- 
ple of  Boston,  the  Dispatch  estimated  the  value  of  the  Boston-made  shoes  used  in 
Virginia,  and  suggested  that  Virginia  people  should  manuf acture  the  shoes  used  in 
the  state.  "That  it  is  time  for  Virginia  to  think  of  doing  some  such  thing  the 
high  handed  measures  lately  adopted  in  Boston  sufficiently  prove.  As  long  as  we 
are  dependent  upon  these  people  they  will  insult  ua  at  pleasure.  Let  us  cut  loose 
from  them  thus  far  at  least."  The  reasoning  was  weak:  If  Boston  people  insulted 
the  Virginians  while  yet  the  latter  were  good  customers,  would  they  not  more  read- 
ily do  so  should  the  Virginians  cease  to  patronize  Boston  shoe  factories! 

More  logical  was  the  reasoning  of  J.D.B.  BeBow  and  others  who,  while  recog- 
nizing that  Southern  enterprise  might  not  convince  the  enemies  of  slavery,  said  it 
would  p repare  the  South  for  the  crisis  which  they  professed  to  believe  was  inevit- 
able. BeBow  wrote:  "We  have  long  ago  thought  that  the  duty  of  the  people  consist- 

ed more  in  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  their  industry,  resources  and  enterprise, 
than  in  bandying  constitutional  arguments  with  their  opponents,  or  in  rhetorical 
flourishes  about  the  sanctity  of  the  federal  compact.  This  is  the  course  of  ect- 
ion  which,  though  it  may  not  convince,  will  at  least  prepare  us  for  this  crisis^ 
which  it  needs  no  seer's  eye  to  see  will,  in  the  event,  be  precipitated  upon  us  by 
the  reckless  fanaticism  of  ignorant  zeal  of  the  'cordon  of  free  States'  surround- 
ing us  on  every  hand.  'Light  up  the  torches  of  industry/  was  the  advice  of  old 
Dr.  Frenklin  to  hie  countrymen,  on  discovering  that  all  hope  from  the  British  cab- 
inet had  fled  forever.  Light  up  the  torches,  say  we  on  every  hill  top,  by  the  side 
o.i  every  stream,  from  the  shores  of  the  Delaware  to  the  furthest  extremes  of  the 
Hio  Gronde-frcm  the  Ohio  to  the  capes  of  Florida. 


86.  Quoted  in  DeBow's  Review.  XI,  8l. 


87.  Ibid.,  IX,  120.  Cf.  ibid . . IV,  211;  XI, 
May  10,  1850,  Whitemersh  B.  Seabreck  Papers; 


680;  William  Gregg  to  Seabrook, 
Richmond  Whig.  Feb.  12,  1851. 


T 


49 


Another  and  more  frequently  used  argument  was  that  diversified  industries 
would  be  favorable  to  a more  rapid  growth  of  population  in  the  South,  and  popula- 
tion was  necessary  -to  political  power.  The  North  had  been  growing  more  rapidly  in 
population  and  political  influence,  it  was  said,  because  immigration  from  abroad 
had  gone  almost  exclusively  to  that  section.  This  was  not  because  slavery  had  re- 
pelled immigration,  but  because  the  South  had  offered  no  inducements.  Southern 
Agriculture  was  ill- adapted  to  European  labor.  And  what  other  industry  hart  the 
South?  The  construction  of  railroads  had  attracted  a few  Irish  and  German  labor- 
ers; but  the  demand  was  insufficient  to  bring  a great  number.  Let  industry  by  di- 
versified, however,  and  the  South  would  get  a share  of  the  influx  from  abroad. 
Northern  people  might  come  South.  Emigration  from  the  Southern  states  would  be 
checked.  The  population  of  the  North  would  then  increase  less  rapidly,  that  of  th< 

South  more  rapidly;  the  relative  political  strength  of  the  South  would  thus  be 

, 88 

preserved . 

Not  all,  however,  considered  immigration  desirable.  Many  feared  that  immi- 
grants would  be  hostile  to  slavery.  The  divereificationiats  attempted  to  overcome 
these  fears-  The  immigrants  could  be  assimilated  and  converted  into  defenders  of 
Southern  institutions,  they  said.  In  proof  of  this  view  they  pointed  to  many  men 
who  had  come  from  the  North  and  were  among  the  staunchest  defenders  of  the  South. 
They  further  contended  that  a large  foreign  element  in  the  North  was  a greater 
menace  to  slavery  than  such  an  element  in  the  South  would  be;  for  there  it  would 
become  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  the  institution.85  Just  as  does  the  fear  a- 
mong  the  slaveholders  of  the  development  of  a class  consciousness  among  the  native 
white  labor,  this  fear  of  immigration  illustrates  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 

88.  Barnard,  Oration  Delivered  before  the  Citizens  of  Tuscaloosa.  Alabama, 

i8|L  29;  DeBpw* e Review.  VIII,  558-60;  XI,  319;  Hunt’s  Merchants' 

Mag. . XXI,  498.  — — — ' 

89.  Barnard,  _ioc_.  cit;  A.  H.  Brisbane  to  J.  H.  Hammond,  Oct.  8,  1849  J.  H. 

Hammond  Papers.  — — 


50 

creating  a public  sentiment  in  the  South  favorable  to  progress  along  other  lines 
than  agriculture . 

During  the  secession  movement  of  1849-1852,  which  has  been  alluded  to,  many 
Unionists  supported  the  efforts  to  develop  Southern  manufactures,  promote  direct 
trade,  construct  internal  improvements,  and  otherwise  build  up  the  South  in  an  ee- 
onomic  way,  as  a substitute  for  disunion.  Their  position  wa3  based  upon  two 
chains  of  reasoning:  1.  Economic  regeneration  of  the  South  would  tend  to  preserve 
the  political  equilibrium  of  the  sections  and  thus  enable  the  Southerr.  states  to 
maintain  their  rights  without  forsaking  the  Union.  2.  The  basic  causes  for  the 
war  being  waged  against  the  Union  were  economic  discontent  and  the  belief  that  the 
Union  had  been  unequal  in  its  material  benefits.  The  Unionists,  in  so  far  as  they 
admitted  Southern  "decline,1*  attributed  it  to  causes  not  connected  with  the  oper- 
ation of  the  government  or  the  Union.  Successful  programs  of  economic  improvement 
would  allay  discontent  end  prove  their  contentions  in  regard  to  the  advantages  of 
the  Union.  This  aspect  of  the  political  basis  for  the  agitation  in  behalf  of  man- 
ufactures will  be  discussed  in  somewhat  greater  detail  elsewhere. 

Although  the  discussion  of  the  desirability  of  diversifying  Southern  industry 
by  no  means  ceased  about  1852,  as  we  shall  see,  the  active  agitation  in  behalf  of 
bringing  the  spindles  to  the  cotton'*  may  be  said  to  have  come  to  an  end  about 
that  date.  The  explanation  of  this  lies  partly  in  the  fact  that  the  comparative 
prosperity  of  cotton  during  the  1850s  weakened  the  force  of  the  economic  arguments 
for  diversification ybut  chiefly  in  the  fact  that  the  agitation  no  longer  was  en- 
couraged by  reports  of  large  profits  and  the  erection  of  new  factories. 

Accounts  of  new  enterprises  continued  to  appear  throughout  1851,  and  then 
ceased  almost  aoruptly.  In  their  stead  there  began  to  appear  reports  of  reduced 
profits,  failures,  and,  later,  explanations  for  the  sudden  collapse  of  a movement 
so  auspiciously  begun.  It  was  not  until  the  later  years  of  the  decade  that  the 
press  again  spoke  optimistically  of  the  progress  of  cotton  manufactures  in  the 


- : i 

» 

, ■ t 

« ' 

: 

■ 

■ 

. i 

• . v ■ - ' 

, ; ■*  .• 

. 

* 

- . ■ ' . : J-  ; 

. , I 

. 

■ 

r 

. 

. 

t , :.  ■ ■ ■ ,i. )’ . ; 0 * ioqn  r.i.*,  * • ••*■ 


51 


South  > William  Gregg,  who  knew  more  about  this  subject  than  any  other  man,  writ- 
ing on  the  very  eve  of  the  War,  stated  that  all  the  progress  made  in  cotton  manu- 
facturing in  the  oouth  during  fifteen  years  was  made  in  "about  five  years  - from 
1845  to  1850."  The  meager  statistics  available  tend  to  sustain  thia  judgment. 
According  to  the  estimates  of  contemporary  reviewers  of  the  cotton  trade  the  South 
em  states  consumed  a quantity  of  raw  cotton  in  the  year  1849-50  which  was  not 
materially  exceeded  until  1859-60. 91  During  the  years  1850  and  1851  the  cotton 
manufacturing  industry  was  suffering  a depression.  It  is  probable  that,  could 
factories  newly  built  or  building  in  1850  have  operated  at  full  capacity,  the  to- 
tal consumption  for  the  year  would  have  equalled  that  of  the  years  immediately 
preceding  the  Civil  Tar.  The  United  States  censuses  for  1840,  1850,  and  i860  may 
be  considered  sufficiently  reliable  to  show  general  tendencies.  The  v&lue  of  the 


product  of  cotton  factories  in  states  south  of  Maryland  was  Si, 912,215  in  1840, 
15,665,362  in  1850,  and  $8, 145,067  in  i860.  Thus  while  the  value  of  the  product 
nearly  trebled  between  1840  and  1850,  it  increased  only  about  43  per  cent  during 
the  following  decade.  The  value  of  the  output  of  cotton  manufactures'  as  a whole 
was  146,350,453  in  1840,  $65,501,  68?  in  1850,  and  $115,681,774  in  i860,  an  in- 
crease of  41  per  cent  during  the  first  decade  and  76.6  per  cent  the  second.92 

The  progress  made  in  cotton  manufacturing  in  the  South  during  the  l840i  must 
be  attributed  chiefly  to  the  unprofitableness  of  cotton  culture  during  the  same 
period  and  the  conviction  of  men  with  capital  that  manuf acturing  would  yield  a 
higher  rate  of  interest  upon  money  invested.  In  some  cases,  it  is  true,  subscrip- 
tion to  the  stock  of  cotton  manufacturing  companies  seems  to  have  been  made  by  pub 
lie  spirited  citizens  prompted  more  by  a desire  to  benefit  their  communities  or 
states  or  to  advance  the  cause  of  the  South  than  by  the  desire  for  prcfi+.  To  some 

Southed  wL^Pl83?!i86r!le  IV  f°r  estirc!ltes  of  <■«••*  i"  «•  North, 

ifl*.  I?  *hr~^endiU—  ~ 36l ; Compendium  of  the  Seventh  Census. 

100,  Eighth  Census,  Manufactures.  Introduction?  P.  vVTT 


52 


degree,  too,  the  agitation  was  instrumental  in  securing  the  liberalization  of  laws 
affecting  joint  stock  companies,  and  may  have  indirectly  contributed  to  the  devel- 
opment of  manufactures.  The  cessation  of  progress  about  1851  cannot  be  attributed 
to  any  abatement  of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  public  • Some  of  the  causes  for 
depression  and  failure  in  the  South  affected  New  England  factories  as  well.  Oth- 
ers were  peculiar  to  the  South  and  serve  to  illustrate  the  difficulties  which  had 
to  be  overcome  there,  perhaps  among  any  agricultural  people,  before  new  industries 
could  become  firmly  established. 

An  important  cause  of  the  depression  in  the  cotton  manufacturing  industry  was 
the  sharp  rise  in  the  price  of  raw  cotton  from  7 cents  in  June  to  11  cents  in  Oct- 
ober, 1849,  double  the  price  of  October,  1848.  With  the  exception  of  the  year 
1851-52,  the  price  of  cotton  remained  comparatively  high  until  the  Civil  War.  Wit* 
the  rise  in  price  the  quantity  of  cotton  taken  for  Northern  mills  fell  from  503,42$ 
bales  in  1848-49  to  465,702  in  1849-50  and  386,429  the  following  year,  while  the 
estimates  of  consumption  of  the  South  and  West  for  the  same  three  years  were  130, 
000,  137,000  and  99,000  bales,  respectively.?3  To  add  to  the  hardships  occasioned 
by  high  priced  raw  material,  there  had  been  a general  fall  in  the  prices  of  cotton 
goods,  caused  partly  by  the  recent  rapid  extensions  of  cotton  manufactures  in  the 
United  States,  and  partly,  it  was  said,  to  the  increased  quantities  of  English 

goods  put  upon  the  Amerioan  market  after  the  Walker  tariff  of  ]846  had  become  ef- 
fective.?^ 

Strangely,  the  factories  of  the  cotton  states  seen  to  have  weathered  the  first 
year  of  two  of  hard  times  better  than  factories  farther  north;  end  Southern  men 
submitted  tha  fact  as  evidence  of  the  superior  advantages  of  those  states  for  cot- 
ton manufacturing. In  the  autumn  of  1850  Joseph  H.  Lumpkin,  of  Georgia,  said  that 

93.  See  appendix,  table  IV. 

94.  HunVs  Merchants*  XXIII,  595ff.  (Dec.  1850);  XXV,  *65;  DeBow’s 

Mview,  X , 93,  143. 


. 

* 

« 


* , , 

' , 

t 

■ • 

* . , , , 

■ , . ;•  q 

, 

, 

, "■  ■ . 


. 

, 

• '•  f . ' 

' 

t , 

* , 

, 


< , , 


53 

he  knew  of  no  bankruptcy  in  any  cotton  company  in  the  South;  and  while  seventy- 

one  mills  were  reported  idle  within  thirty  miles  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  and 

numerous  others  in  the  North  were  either  idle  or  upon  short  time,  some  Southern 

companies  were  declaring  a dividend  of  10  per  cent.96  The  Savannah  Newg.  reported 

that  Southern  factories  were  prosperous,  while  some  Northern  mills  were  closing; 

and  added,  "Tnase  facts  prove  what  we  have  often  asserted,  that  we  have  a decided 

advantage  over  the  North  in  the  business  of  manufacturing  yams  and  coarse  cotton 

goods. Thomas  Prentice  Kettell,  of  New  York,  wrote:  "It  is  the  transition  of 

the  seat  of  manufactures  from  the  North  and  East  to  the  South  end  West,  under 

which  Northern  manufacturing  capital  is  laboring. "98  But  factories  in  the  cotton 

belt  did  fail  during  the  years  1850,  1851,  and  1852,  establishments  changed  hands 

at  much  less  than  the  original  cost,  and  the  profits  of  all  were  greatly  reduced. 

Moreover,  Southern  factories  revived  much  more  slowly  than  those  of  New  England. 

•h  ,!5;/irgin/a*and  Maryl9rtd  factories  did  not  escape  the  hard  times.  A conven- 
1 a"!!  interests  meeting  in  Richmond,  late  in  1850,  reported  that 

a oon  ? ’ ;J  s?1^dJeB  in  thA-t  state,  7,000  were  running  at  three-fourths  time 
8,000  at  one-third  time,  22,000  at  full  time  but  three-fourths  wages  while  the 

tinr^r  eiJhIir  idl°  °r  Practically  9°;  the  whole  averaged  about  one-half 
™ the  conditions  were  worse.  0?  23  factories,  8 were  idle.and 

nl,  2 were  running  full  time.  Hunt  * s Merchants*  Mag..  XXIV.  262.  The  iron,  in- 

ion0ryn»Jfl  Wel1  ^ the  cotton  mwiuf  ^oturing  industry,  was  complaining  of  depress- 
ion. The  reason  assigned  was  English  and  Scotch  competition. 

, » 4^*  (From  an  address  delivered  before  the  South  Car- 

olina Institute  at  its  Second  Annual  Fair,  Nov.  19,  1850.)  As  late  as  1855  will 

IT  the  ex:epti“  °?  the  Salud^  comp«ny  ITe  ZllTTl 

SoSh  Carllin!?  be  n+r  ! failur®8  very  few  embarrassed  concerns  (in 

„ Carolina),  and  they  labored  under  most  of  the  ddfecte  thet  I named  as  ei  e- 

the  t erribl^™SSment%  *5S7  f<,ilure  «“  0^6i«  fL?o“iea  during 

doing  well1  Zttl  ™ it  l8?°  51  • ™ »«.  1th  one  or  two  exceptions?® 

Manufacture,,  i r £l  Greg£>  President  of  the  Graniteville 

Co.,  1855,  quoted  in  DeBcw'a  Review.  XVIII,  788. ’ — ' ” 

97.  Quoted  in  2£BowVs  Review,  XI,  322.  (Sept.,  1851). 

TTll  :.M8—  !•••  than 


54 

Many  of  them  dragged  out  a sickly  existence  until  a year  or  two  before  the  war, 
when  they  again  became  prosperous.  The  example  of  these  factories  discouraged 
further  investments  of  capital." 

Cotton  factories  in  the  South  experienced  difficulties  other  than  the  high 
price  of  raw  material  and  the  low  prices  of  goods.100  The  factories  were  often 
cheaply  constructed,  and  the  best  machinery  was  not  always  provided.  Several  of 
them  employed  steam-power,  which  proved  too  costly  and  put  them  under  a big  hand- 
icap from  the  start.  Local  pride  in  many  cases  hod  much  to  do  with  raising  capi- 
tal and,  consequently,  in  selecting  sites.  As  a result  the  mills  were  often  injud- 
iciously located  in  respects  of  health,  steady  motive  power,  and  marketing  of 
goods.  The  labor  problem  was  a difficult  one.  Negro  labor  required  too  much  cap- 
ital, if  bought;  and  proved  unsatisfactory  in  any  case. 101  The  whites,  though  they 
worked  for  lower  wages  than  the  mill  operatives  of  the  North,  from  ignorance  and 
long  habits  of  indolence,  were  difficult  to  train  and  control.102  Because  of  the 
unskilled  labor,  Southern  factories  required  more  efficient  superintendents  than 
Northern  factories,  but  did  not  pay  sufficiently  high  salaries  to  command  them. 

been  du^  Ind*  of*he  failures  at  Augusta,  Ga.  There  canals  had 

of  a second Lo™n  VT°?  ’ power  6n0U?h  8ecured  to  d**ive  the  spindles 

/ Lowell.  Factories  sprang  up  on  a large  scale.  A long  chain  of  chan* 

f0ll,°r?d-  SggfflQs  Kevi™,  XXVIII,  483.  William  Lg^te°  i7* 

1 e ffUiUie  the  Augusta  Mills  has  done  more  to  put  back  the  progress  of 
^ thS  S°Uth  ±htm  any  °th6r  failure  that  has  taken  place!*’  Ibid.. 

(1)  Renor/of  t\SiCr8irS  °f  the  CaUSeS  f0r  failure  of  Southern  factories  see: 
j ) Report  2X  Gre£&,  Pj^Aeilt  At  Jfehe  Graniteville  Manufacturing  Co. 

1855  (pamphlet);  also  in  DeBo^J  XVI 1 1,' YtmT. 2SBILIBB2SEL • , 

XAVIEX9?aff  ff£?  °f  JmBS  MoiltgorTiery’  English  manufacturer,  ibid., 

Florence,  Alab^ia,  ibidf^rar^T^f  A)  C°!t?n  raanuf^turer  of 

( c\  ; Jr5-1**'  AA1V»  3o2-o.  (4)  Hunt  s Merchants  ’ Mas..  XLTT  3?6f_ 

in  D^eBow  ^ f “ FmTonT^^sti^inil^y** 

,7’83i  225-32;  494-500;  623-31;  771-8;  XXX,  102-4;  216-23. 

101.  Robert  Russell,  North  .jmeriajB,  295 

102.  See  Edward  Ingle,  Southern  Side! -i  <?Vi+«  . 

paid  in  the  South  rm,., + — JS&L  »4ff.  for  a discussion  of  wages 

trlzrl  = ^ “S-S 

, a*  uranixevilie,  S.C.,  and  Prattsville,  Ala.  DeBow’s.  XVIII , 778-90. 


55 


(The  superintendents  wex’e  in  most  cases  from  the  North.)  There  was  the  difficul- 
ty, also,  of  forcing  the  products  of  infant  industries  upon  a market  already  sup- 
plied with  Northern  and  English  goods;  103  and  there  is  evidence  that  New  England 
manufactures  resorted  to  quite  modem  methods  in  meeting  threatened  competition 
from  the  South.  The  story  was  told  of  a Georgia  factory  that  put  upon  the  market 
sn  article  known  as  ''Georgia  Stripes",  which  proved  very  popular.  New  England 
mills  imitated  it  with  a cheaper  article,  and  drove  it  from  the  market.  The  fact- 
ory then  turned  to  "Georgia  Plains."  Samples  were  sent  North,  and  soon  the  market 
was  flooded  with  Yankee  Georgia  Plains."-^  Southern  manufacturers,  selecting 
sound  raw  material, made  goods  of  high  quality;  but  their  Southern  customers  appar- 
ently preferred  low  prices  to  quality,  which  was  more  difficult  to  recognize.  And, 
despite  statements  of  Southern  writers  to  the  contrary,  the  probabilities  are  that 
the  Yankee  goods  were  better  in  proportion  to  price.  Again,  the  idea  was  too 
prevalent  that  an  effort  should  be  made  to  supply  the  local  demand,  end  that  a 
little  of  everything  should  be  made;  it  would  have  been  better  to  specialize.  The 
consumers  seemed  to  prefer  goods  from  a distance  to  those  of  home  manufacture. 
"Yankee  made",  "made  in  the  .North",  or  "just  from  New  York  ”,  were  advertisements 
wnich  appealed  to  the  purchaser,  manufacturers  frequently  complained  of  the  want 
of  home  patronage;  but,  except  in  times  of  unusual  sectional  bitterness,  appeals 
to  local  pride  or  patriotism  were  rather  ineffective. 

One  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  the  success  of  Southern  establi Aliments  was  the 
lack  of  sufficient  capital.  The  factories  were  too  often  begun  with  insufficient 

103.  Stephen  Colwell,  The  Five  Cotton  StateA .and  New  York . (Pamphlet,  i860.) 

104.  ixeaow's  He view.  XA1A,  627. 


a ..  J-05*  Lord  3?dd  the  Southern  people  "found  the  Yankee-made  a better 

hJ0^’^  ^ 41  appeal!3  t0  their  Southern  pride  and  patriotism,  would 

7T2-  ^ ^S£gJ3ion  upon  the  Coranercial  Relations  between  the  North 

frr  HE2&  each.  Sep^ipn,  17-  Edwin  Heriat,  of  Charleston,  said  the 

s .-loxisnod  opinion  in  the  South  was  that  Northern  articles  were  better,  although 
the  facts  wex*e  jus^  the  reverse.  DeBow's  Review.  XXIX  218. 


- **40  i 

- 

. 

, 

' ' -r  ,• 

* 

’ 1 • ; ' . • 

. - . ■ 

■ 

« 


' ' ' ” ' , J * ' , " ,T 

« ‘ > . 

’ ■ • f r!  •;  o fflO 


1 ■ ‘ 


. 


; 

' ’ • , . '■  ' . <’ 

. 

I • ’ • , ■ . . . 

• < . 


56 


capital,  were  in  debt  from  the  start,  and  maintained  no  reserve  of  cash  to  enable 
them  to  buy  row  material  when  the  price  was  low  and  hold  back  the  product  from  a 
depressed  market.  Frequent  items  are  met  in  Southern  papers  telling  of  consign- 
ments of  goods  to  Northern  citiee.  The  papers  of  the  South  were  inclined  to  boast 


of  such  incidents  without  stopping  to  inquire  the  reasons  for  their  occurrence.106 
Because  of  insufficient  capital,  the  cotton  manufacturers  of  the  cotton  state,  as 
were  the  tobacco  manufacturers  of  Virginia,  were  constantly  in  need  of  advances. 
lllfl  advances  could  most  readily  be  secured  by  drawing  upon  agents  in  New  York  or 
other  Northern  cities,  who  sold  the  goods.  This  system  meant  that  the  goods  some- 
times had  to  be  sold  in  a depressed  market  to  meet  the  drafts.  Southern  manufact- 
urers could  not  sell  directly  to  Southern  merchants  or  jobbers,  because  the  latter 
bought  on  long  credit,  which  the  manufacturers  were  unable  to  extend.  Both  mill 
ovrners  and  merchants  experienced  difficulty  in  procuring  loans  from  home  banks  - 
whether  because  of  inadequacy  of  banking  facilities,  or,  as  some  believed,  because 
'! i banking  policy,  we  will  not  pause  here  to  inquire.'5"''"^ 


106.  Hunts*  MSi^gnts’  to.  XXI,  384.  Cf.  DeBow’s  Review f XI,  322:  F.  L. 
Olmsted,  Journey  in_  the  Seaboard  Slave  States.  II,  184. 

l0?’  ?.n  3o8t!m  0f  advanc9S  nnd  lonK  credits  and  the  question  of  banking  faci- 
lities in  the  South,  see  Chapter  V. 


CHAPTER  III 


The  Relation  of  Ec onojnic^  Pi sc ont ent  to  the 
Southern  Movement . to  18^2. 

Discontent  with  the  economic  conditions  of  the  South,  absolutely  and  as  com- 
pared with  otner  sections,  found  expression  in  the  direct  trade  conventions  of 
183  7-39.  It  also  was  expressed  in  the  agitation  in  behalf  of  the  establishment 
of  cotton  manufactures.  While  it  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  the  sole  or  even 
primary  cause  for  the  Southern  movement  which  culminated  in  secession,  its  influ- 
ence upon  that  movement  was  by  no  means  negligible,  especially  in  its  earlier  sta- 
ges. 

The  story  of  South  Carolina  nullification,  to  begin  no  farther  back,  is  too 
well  known  to  require  more  than  a brief  summary  here.  About  1825  and  following 
years,  strong  opposition  developed  in  the  older  planting  states  of  the  Siuth,  es- 
pecially South  Carolina,  to  the  policy  of  a high  and  protective  tariff  and  heavy 
expenditures  for  internal  improvements.  The  basis  of  this  opposition  lay  not  only 
in  the  fact  that  the  protected  industries  and  the  internal  improvements  at  govern- 
ment expense  were  in  other  sections,  but  also  in  the  apparently,  or  really,  impov- 
erished condition  of  the  old  planting  section  compared  with  other  sections  of  the 
Union.  In  no  state  were  conditions  more  favorable  to  the  growth  of  discontent  than 
in  South  Carolina.  Industry  was  not  at  all  diversified.  The  price  of  cotton  had 
fallen.  Land  values  were  declining.  Population  was  increasing  slowly,  if  at  all. 
Charleston  was  making  comparatively  little  progress.  These  conditions  were  attri- 
buted in  great  measure  to  the  protective  tariff  and  the  extravagant  expenditures 
of  the  Federal  government.  Failing  to  secure  a reversal  of  the  objectionable  poli- 
cies, opponents  of  the  tariff  hit  upon  nullification  as  a remedy.  Upon  nullifica- 
tion as  the  issue  two  parties  developed.  The  State  Rights  party,  or  Nullifiers. 
neld  nullification  to  be  a constitutional  mode  of  resisting  palpably  unconstitu- 
tional laws,  which  they  considered  the  tariff  laws  to  be,  and  thought  it  justified 


* 

. 

. 

< 


' , 

t . ’ r t 


< 


r 


■!  r. 

1*  < 

■ ■ 

. 

• 'i 

< ' ■ •:  t ■ • 


58 


by  the  oppression  suffered  under  the  tariff.  They  professed  to  believethat  nulli- 
fication would  result  in  a repeal  of  the  tariff,  but  were  prepared  to  resort  to  it 
even  should  war  and  disunion  be  the  consequences.  The  Union  party,  on  the  other 
hand,  opposed  nullification  as  unconstitutional  and  certain  to  lead  to  war,  which 
could  result  only  in  the  crushing  of  South  Carolina-  Many  of  the  Unionists,  too, 
either  denied  that  South  Carolina  was  not  prosperous,  or,  admitting  it,  attributed 
the  lack  of  prosperity  to  other  causes  than  the  tariff.  After  a violent  struggle 
of  four  years  duration  a convention  was  called,  which  adopted  an  ordinance  nulli- 
fying the  tariff  laws  of  1028  and  1832.  While  .Andrew  Jackson  prepared  to  employ 
force,  Congress  enacted  the  Compromise  Tariff,  of  1833  - Thereupon  the  South  Caro- 
lina convention  repealed  the  nullification  ordinance.  In  other  Southern  states 
where  was  much  sympathy  with  South  Carolina's  opposition  to  the  tariff,  and  many 
citizens  accepted  in  whole  or  in  part  the  doctrines  of  the  Nullifiers.  This  was 

especially  true  of  Georgia  and  eastern  Virginia,  and  to  a less  degree  true  of  North 
Carolina  and  Alabama^ 

After  1333  the  divison  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina  into  Nullifiers  and 
Unionists  was  largely  perpetuated,  the  former  being  in  a growing  majority.  The 
Nullifiers  first  affiliated  with  the  Whig  party,  which  took  form  about  1834;  about 
1833-40  the  great  majority  of  them  were  led  back  into  the  Democratic  fold  by  Cal- 
houn, and  continued  thereafter  to  call  themselves  Democrats.  After  this  latter 
date  the  Unionists  were  to  be  found  in  the  dwindling  Whig  party  and  in  what  may  be 
termed  the  Jackson  wing  of  the  Democratic  party.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  leaders 
of  the  dominant  faction  to  conciliate  and  assimilate  the  Unionist  faction;  this  pol- 
icy  was  successful  in  the  main.  In  other  Southern  states,  particularly  the  cotton 
states  and  Virginia,  the  large  majority  of  those  who  had  sympathized  with  the  South 
Carolina  Nullifiers  in  1832  continued  in  their  devotion  to  the  principles  of  the 

^on  standard  special  works  and  monographs 
Irtwj  Prin<  'zu \au«n  — - C^h-°-u-n;  Correspondence  of 


. 

. 

' 

• : ■ i 


. 

, 

• 

- 

. 

* 


< 


■ 

t 


• - - • » * • - • * 


, 

; 


, 

, t 


. 


59 


nullificationist  leaders.  Perhapa  the  majority  of  this  class  (Georgia  end  North 
Carolina  may  be  exceptions)  were  aligned  with  the  Whig  party  during  the  early 
years  of  its  history.  Most  of  those  so  aligned,  however,  shifted  to  the  Democrat- 
ic party,  either  with  Calhoun  during  Van  Buren's  administration,  or  later,  in  Ty- 
ler's time  • Of  those  who  remained  with  the  Whigs,  some  were  ostensibly  converted 
to  Whig  principles;  others  retained  both  their  state  rights,  free  trad©  and  re- 
form principles  and  their  Whig  affiliation  until  almost  the  end  of  the  Whig  party. 
o.n  the  Democratic  party  the  line  of  cleavage  between  the  Calhoun  wing  and  the 
Jackson-Benton-Van  Buren  wing  regained  fairly  distinct  until  the  Civil  War.  It 
was  the  former  ©lament  which  rallied  to  the  support  of  John  C.  Calhoun  when  he 

came  forward  in  1843  as  the  free  trade  and  reform  candidate  for  the  Democratic 

2 

nomination  for  the  presidency. 

The  Calhoun  wing  of  the  democratic  party  held  extreme  state  rights  principles. 
Furthermore,  it  had  been  and  continued  to  be  the  conviction  of  this  following  thd 
(1)  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  too  extravagantly  administered;  (2) 


tne  Southern  people  paid  more  than  their  proportionate  share  of  the  revenues  and 


received  back  much  less  than  their  proportionate  share  in  the  form  of  disbursements 
(3)  they  were  compelled  by  government  to  pay  tribute  to  Northern  manufacturers, 
ship  owners,  and  merchants  by  virtue  of  the  tariff,  fishing  bounties,  exclusion 
of  toreign  vessels  from  the  coasting  trade,  and  heavy  government  expenditures  in 
the  North;  (4)  and  these  continual  and  uncompensated  drains  upon  the  resources  of 
the  Southern  states  were  enriching  the  North  and  impoverishing  the  South.  No 
Nullifier  would  admit  that  the  Southern  states  had  the  prosperity  or  were  making 


m , ?’  +1*  T ® imP°33ibl*  in  « study  of  this  scope  to  develop  the  statements 

th®  suran?ry  an^ysis  of  the  party  alignment  in  the  South.  They  ar® 

ii  ^ vJriety  of  purees  quoted  elsewhere  in  other  connections  - spec- 

J1?8S : f s£  John  c.  Calhoun  and  of  the  J.  H. 

Ld ^6V®  th%C^olusions  here  Presented  accort^~t£~m£in~ 

SrffwffiKhff  Z ZllT  L „??!•.  au.Eant  la  tti  so^  Phiiups, 

TTb~.V^“SS^.i“?l'?"b:Ler'  SSSliS&aijJSl  is.  a.rsisis,  and  Thomas  Ritchi.TTt 
tiat.  the  conclusions!  * Pr.B.nt.d  .Issuers  in  this  stud~ Sd.TTwbrtw 


• • ‘ ' ’ • • ■ • • , j _ « l m . . a . . . , ■ 

< 

■ : -■  ■ ■ , i -.j-  ■ ■ 


-s,  ■ ' 


Lr rn 


1 . if 


r - ■.  ' ■ •. 

‘ ''  ’ ••  / - •;  • .-tv.  - ; ■ • 


, ■ 


...  v-  oj  • . 


•.  / . I- 


J ; I 


' • 


. 

, „ ■ X i 

* * * ■ 

( , 

• . . . , . 

. 


60 


the  material  progress  to  which  their  resources,  population,  and  the  industry  of 
their  people  entitled  them.  " Abolish  custom  houses,"  wrote  Calhoun,  1845,  "and 
let  the  money  collected  in  the  South  be  spent  in  the  South  and  we  would  be  among 
the  most  flourishing  people  in  the  world.  The  North  could  not  stand  the  annual 
draft,  which  they  have  been  making  on  us  for  50  years,  without  being  reduced  to 
extreme  poverty  in  half  the  time.  All  we  want  to  be  rich  is  to  let  us  have  what 
we  make. "3  Such  views  as  these  were  expressed  in  every  tariff  debate,  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  almost  every  rivers  and  harbors  bill,  fortifications  bill,  pensions 
bill  - in  fact  whenever  a proposal  was  introduced  in  Congress  which  involved  the 
raising  or  appropriation  of  money.  They  were  presented, as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
direct  trade  conventions  of  1837-1839  . They  came  out  in  almost  every  comparison 
of  the  progress  of  the  North  and  South  and  in  every  defense  of  slavery;  for  it 
was  necessary  to  trace  "Southern  decline"  to  other  causes  than  slavery. 

It  was  the  constant  purpose  of  Calhoun  and  other  leaders  to  reform  the  "fiscal 
action  of  the  General  Government."  but  it  had  early  become  the  conviction  of  some 
oi  his  followers  that  the  government  was  beyond  redemption,  and  that  the  proper 
policy  for  the  Southern  states  to  pursue  was  separation  from  the  North,  The  bit- 
ter feelings  engendered  and  the  fears  for  slavery  aroused  by  the  several  quarrels 
over  governmental  policies  affecting  that  institution  had  led  many  to  calculate 
the  value  of  the  Union  from  an  economic  viewpoint  who  otherwise  might  not  have  done 
so.  A consideration  of  the  benefits  and  disadvantages  of  the  Union  led  a number 
to  form  the  conclusion  that  disunion  was  not  a consummation  to  be  dreaded  and  avoid- 
ed but  a measure  which  would  promote  the  prosperity,  power,  and  happiness  of  the 
South. 

A n example  of  their  reasoning  may  be  found  in  a great  speech  against  the  tar- 
iff of  1842,  which  George  McDuffie,  of  South  Carolina,  mode  in  the  Senate,  1844. 

He  warned  the  advocates  of  protection  that  there  was  a point  beyond  which  oppress-  I 
3.  Calhoun  to  J.  H.  Hammond,  Aug.  30,  1845,  Calhoun  Correspondence.  6?0 . 


, 

< < t 


. 


* 


; . , i xi  ico. 

■ • ftfefc  i 


< 


. 


. 


* 


, , 

- 


. 


. 

• - , , ■ , ' • 


61 

ion  would  not  be  endured,  "even  by  the  most  enslaved  community  in  the  world."  He 

pictured  the  Union  divided  into  three  confederations  - the  North  and  Northeast 

one,  the  TVest  a9  another,  and  the  Southern  states  as  a third.  He  showed  that 

"the  manufacturing  states  could  not  adhere  to  the  protective  system  one  year.  They 
would  have  no  revenue,  and  would  be  driven  to  direct  taxation;  whereas  the  South- 
ern confederation  would  become  the  importing  States,  receiving  in  exchange  foreign 
manufactures  for  tneir  rice,  cotton,  tobacco,  and  sugar;  that  the  southwestern 
confederation  would  be  exchangers  with  the  southern  confederation  of  their  pro- 
ducts for  the  products  of  Europe;  for  they  would  never  be  so  foolish  as  to  buy  of 
the  New  England  Confederation  at  forty  per  cent,  higher  in  price  than  need  be 
paid  for  the  same  goods  in  the  southern  confederation.  ...  In  ten  years  there 
would  be  such  a difference  that  a person  absent  90  long  returning,  would  be  strick 
with  the  change  in  the  condition  of  these  sections  of  the  country.  The  west  he 
would  see  grown  up  into  a great  and  flourishing  empire;  the  south  the  seat  of  com- 
merce and  the  arts;  the  great  cities  of  Boston  and  New  York  rebuilt  in  Charleston 
and  New  Orleans,  and  more  flourishing  than  in  their  original  uncongenial  climates. 
But  in  New  England  he  would  find  the  prosperity,  comforts,  wealth,  etc.,  result- 
ing from  partial  legislation  all  gone:  houses  falling  to  ruin,  cities  deserted, 

urniture  selling  by  auction,  and  all  the  indications  of  indigence  prevailing. 

McDuffie  was  arguing  for  a repeal  of  the  tariff;  but  others  in  his  state 
used  similar  arguments  in  favor  of  disunion.  During  the  short-lived  Bluff  ton 
'ovement,  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made,  disunion  sentiments  were  open- 
ly expressed.  Judge  Langdon  Cheves  in  a long  letter  to  the  Charleston  Mercury 
made  a thinly  veiled  argument  for  disunion;'  and  as  such  it  was  taken  both  South 
and  North.6  A few  months  later  another  correspondent  of  the  Mercury,  in  an  article 
headed  "Reflections  on  re-perusing  Judge  Cheves 's  Letter,"  put  the  case  for  se- 
cession without  any  indirection  whatsoever.  "The  institutions  and  municipal  poli- 
cy, and  geographical  position,  and  popular  feelings  and  pursuits  of  the  North  and 
South  can  never  harmonize  as  one  people.  Speak  it  out  - for  it  is  spoken  sub  rosi 
m every  group  of  domestic  and  political  coterie  - that  the  sections  divided  by 
A*  Conft.  Globe , 28  Cong.  1 Sees.,  206  ( Jan. 29). 

5«  Niles*  Register.  LXVII,  48ff. 

6*  A ifeP.il.  12.  ill®.  tl®  Ho  no  rable  Langdon  Cheves.  by  "A  Southerner", 

(pamphlet);  J.  tt.  Adams,  Memoirs.  XII  r 91, 


62 

interest  can  never  assimilate  in  sentiment  and  national  amity."7  Both  Cheves  and 
his  reviewer  described  how  separation  would  promote  the  prosperity  of  agriculture 
and  commerce  in  the  South. 

The  saner  leaders  in  South  Carolina,  at  the  time  of  the  Bluffton  Movement, 
were  insistent  that  any  measure  taken,  whether  secession  or  nullification,  must  be 
taken  by  a united  South;  and  they  labored  under  no  delusions  in  regard  to  the  at- 
titude of  the  South  as  a whole.  In  the  spring  of  1844  the  cry,  "Tsxb.s  or  Disunion, 
had  awakened  response  in  several  Southern  states;8  but  as  soon  as  it  hsj d achieved 
its  purpose  of  securing  the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  presidency  for  a South- 
ern man  who  was  sound  on  the  Texas  issue,  the  Democratic  leaders  proved  most  anx- 
ious to  clear  themselves  of  any  taint  of  disunion  which  the  Whigs  tried  to  fix  up- 
on them.'  The  Charleston  Mercury  admitted  that  other  states  would  not  join  South 
Carolina  in  resistance.""”  General  James  Hamilton  wrote  in  a public  letter:  "I  can- 
not but  express  my  belief  that  South  Carolina  is  not  now  ready  for  separate  action, 
nor  the  southern  states  for  a southern  convention."  He  expressed  the  same  view 
privately.  Langdon  Cheves  suggested  that,  instead  of  South  Carolina  undertaking 
an  active  propaganda  be  conducted  throughout  the  South  to  develop  among  the  people 
a feeling  of  unity  and  a sense  of  their  oppression  * He  would  have  had  a course 

7.  April  4,  1845;  Niles*  Register .LXVII I T 88ff. 

8.  Niles'  Register,  LXVI,  132,  meeting  in  South  Carolina;  ibid.,LXVI,  3.23 

^rleans  iMd«,  229,  312,  accounts  of  meetings  in  Barnwell 

District,  South  Carolina,  and  Russell  County,  Ala.;  ibid..  312,  quoting  Mobile 
Triune.  Richmond  inquirer,  and  other  Southern  papers;  ibid..  LXVI,  405,  disunion 
meetings  in  Lawrenc e c ounty , Alabama  and  in  several  distTilts  in  South' Carol  in  a* 
Benton,  Thirty  Years*  View.  II,  613-619.  a* 

7^-—'  .LXVI»  313’  347  ’ 369’  391,  406,  411,  quoting  the  Richmond 
*77  ae  fef!ying  connection  with  "Texas  or  Disunion"  cry  and  proposed  Southern 
at  Nashville;  ibid.,  LXVI,  313,  346,  and  the  National  Intelligencer, 
uly  23,  on  the  meeting  in  Nashville  to  protest  against  the  proposed  "Texas  or 
Disunion  convention;  National  Intel  1 i ge n c e r . July  27,  Aug.  10,  11, 


4o6ff . 


10.  Aug.  9,  1844,  "Our  Position  and  our  Pledges,"  in  Niles'  Register.  LXVI, 


11  * — -*»  LXVT»  42°i  Hamilton  to  Hammond,  Oct.  4,  1844,  J.  H.  Hamnond  Pap  era. 


followed  similar  to  that  pursued  in  the  Thirteen  Colonies  prior  to  the  American 
Revolution:  "Let  associations  be  formed  in  every  southern,  end  if  possible,  in 
every  southwestern  state;  and  let  them  confer  together  end  interchange  views  and 
information;  let  leading  men  through  committees  and  private  correspondence  collect 
compare,  and  concentrate  the  views  of  men  in  their  respective  states,  end  when 
ripe  for  it,  and  not  before,  let  representatives  from  those  states  meet  in  conven- 
tion, and  if  circumstances  promise  success,  let  them  then  deliberate  on  the  mode 
of  resistance  and  the  measure  of  redress.""^  It  became  the  settled  policy  of  cer- 
tain South  Carolina  leaders  to  bring  the  Southern  states  together  in  convention, 
to  break  down  party  distinctions  throughout  the  South,  as  they  had  largely  been 
broken  down  in  their  own  state,  end  to  "fire  the  Southern  heart." 

There  was  little  in  the  course  of  events  during  the  next  several  years  to 
modify  the  views  of  men  of  the  South  Carolina  school  or  to  deplete  the  ranks  of 
the  disunionist3 . The  Walker  tariff,  the  Independent  Treasury,  and  the  veto  of 
rivers  and  harbors  bills  pleased  but  did  not  satisfy  the  free  trade  and  reform 
element.  Then  with  the  introduction  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  1846,  there  began  an 
acrimonious  struggle  over  slavery  which  continued  almost  without  interruption  un- 
til about  1852,  when  the  general  acceptance  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  the 
defeat  of  efforts  to  resist  it,  ushered  in  a short  period  of  relative  calm.  The 
disposition  evinced  by  the  majority  in  the  North  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  ter- 
ritory acquired  from  Mexico  and  other  manifestations  of  hostility  to  the  institu- 
tion, together  with  the  growing  political  preponderance  and  unity  of  the  free 
states,  caused  the  majority  in  the  South  to  fear  for  the  security  of  slavery  and 
other  substantial  Southern  interests.  Southern  leaders  were  put  to  it  to  know 
how  to  meet  the  issue.  Under  these  circumstances  disunion  was  fully  canvassed 
as  a remedy,  immediate  or  ultimate. 


12.  Niles1  Register,  LXVII,  48. 


< 


, 

, 


« y U(sm  , 


■ 

« 


( 

, 


. 

. • 


, 


. 


* 


64 


The  long  debates  in  Congress,  the  accompanying  discussion  in  the  press  and 
'rom  the  platform,  the  Southern  conventions  at  Nashville  end  their  preliminaries, 
and,  finally , the  contests  wsged  in  several  states  between  those  who  favored  ac- 
quescence  in  the  Compromise  measures  and  those  who  counselled  resistance,  afford- 
ed ample  opportunity  for  a thorough  discussion  of  the  advantages  and  disadvantages 
of  the  Union  and  the  expediency  and  propriety  of  secession.  Thb  discussion  re- 
vealed how  extensively  the  ideas  were  held  that  the  Union  was  a detriment  to  the 
prospex-ity  and  economic  progress  of  the  South  and,  the  corollary,  the  South  would 


be  more  prosperous  and  develop  more  rapidly  were  the  Union  dissolved.  The  discuss- 
ion  also,  no  doubt,  contributed  to  the  spread  of  these  ideas.  It  also  revealed 
the  number,  and  no  doubt  increased  it,  of  those  who,  while  they  did  not  look  for 
disunion  to  bring  positive  economic  advantages,  expected  it  to  bring  no  serious 
disadvantages  — in  short,  those  who  could  look  to  disunion  with  complacency,  for 
whom  it  Mhad  no  terrors.” 


Very  early  in  the  struggle  over  slavery  in  the  territory  to  be  acquired  from 
Mexico  declarations  were  given  in  the  South  of  a determination  to  resist  the  addi- 
tion and  enforcement  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  "at  all  hazards  and  to  the  last  extrem- 
ity."^ As  the  struggle  progressed  these  declarations  were  renewed,  and  extended, 
as  the  issues  were  presented,  to  include  other  threatened  acts  of  Northern  aggres- 
sion. prove  that  these  were  not  merely  idle  threats,  Southern  men  talked  long 
end  angrily  of  Southern  rights  and  Southern  honor  end  pictured  the  ruin  that  would 
be  brought  to  the  South  by  abolition  - which  they  professed  to  believe  would  be 
the  ultimate  consequence  of  restriction  of  slave  territory  and  loss  of  the  section- 
al equilibrium.  Many  also  endeavored  to  demonstrate  that  the  South  could  safely 
■take  the  Union  upon  the  issue  of  the  struggle,  because  the  South  would  suffer 

Rein Resol^io*0’  ^r.  8,  184?“  in  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal 
^ were  first  official  declaration.  Other  state  legislatures 

resrLtio°sPa^eCrVentir8'  ™d  nuraerolis  meetings  of  cities  adopted  similar  ’ 
resolutions.  See  Hamer,  Secession  Movement  in  S.  c.,  1847-1852.  p.  f,  6,  11,  l6f., 


*n 

< • 

' , , 

« •'  • , , , 

< , . 

- 

' • • ' . ..  ■>  >•  : . 

, 


, 


, 


, , « - 

. 

, 

. 


65 


very  little,  if  not  actually  gain,  from  a dissolution,  while  the  North  stood  to 
lose  so  much  in  the  event  that  she  would  yield  rather  than  permit  the  Union  to  be 
destroyed  - "calculating  the  value  of  the  Union,"  this  was  termed. 

After  the  election  of  1848  and  after  the  Taylor  administration  had  seemed  tc 
show  anti-slavery  proclivities,  the  task  of  calculating  the  value  of  the  Union  was 
undertaken  in  earnest.  In  the  press,  in  numerous  pamphlets,  the  possibility  of 
disunion  was  considered,  and  its  economic  value  weighed.  In  Congress,  especially, 
during  the  debates  on  the  Compromise  measures,  one  Southern  senator  and  represen- 
tative often  another  reinforced  his  threats  of  a dissolution  in  case  the  South 
were  denied  justice  by  more  or  less  elaborate  comparisons  of  the  economic  advan- 
tages or  disadvantages  of  the  Union  to  the  various  sections.  Many  of  those  who 
thus  celculated  the  value  of  the  Union  were  conditional  disunionists.  They  pro- 
fessed to  be  ready  to  stake  the  Union  upon  the  satisfaction  of  their  demands.  In 
all  probability  their  demands  would  not  have  been  so  great  or  so  firmly  held,  had 
they  attached  greater  value  tc  the  Union;  nevertheless,  they  intended  to  preserve 
the  Union  if  it  could  be  done  without  too  greet  sacrifice.  But  another  class  was 
in  evidence  during  the  crisis,  the  disunionists  per  se.  They  favored  disunion  ir- 
respective of  the  character  of  the  settlement  of  the  pending  questions  of  conflict. 
They  apparently  would  have  demanded  guarantees  of  the  North  which  they  would  have 
had  no  expectation  of  securing.  In  their  opinion  the  interests  of  the  two  sections 
had  become  so  diverse  that  they  could  no  longer  live  amicably  under  one  government. 
The  Union  had  become  a disadvantage  to  the  South:  she  would  be  more  peaceful,  hap- 
py, and  prosperous  out  of  it. 

Naturally,  the  first  manifestations  of  this  ultra  sentiment  were  in  South  Cap- 
olina.  As  early  as  November  2,  1848,  H.  W.  Connor,  of  Charleston,  wrote  Calhoun 
that  he  believed  "there  has  been  and  probably  still  is  a design  to  revive  the  old 
Bluffton  movement  with  the  same  motive  and  end."14  The  following  February,  J.  H. 

14.  Calhoun  Correspondence.  Cf.  Hamer,  0£.  cit.,  26, 


, 

' , 

' ' •-  • . ^ . 


. 

‘ 


' ' ' ' ' ■ 'JiLlirttnq  J£r 


. 

* 

' 


* 


■ 

; 


, 


, 


t " 


, 


66 


Hammond  expressed  to  Calhoun  his  belief  that  the  crisis  was  at  hand.1-  In  the  sum- 
mer  of  1849  the  South  Carolina  Telegraph  began  openly  to  agitate  for  a dissolution 
of  the  Union;  anc<  by  early  in  1850  nearly  every  newspaper  in  the  state  was  advo- 
eating  disunion.  The  Charleston  Mercury  expected  it.1?  Meanwhile  Governor  Sea- 
brook  was  in  correspondence  with  the  governors  of  other  Southern  states  relative 
to  what  action  they  might  be  expected  to  take  if  the  Wilmot  Proviso  or  other  ob- 
jectionable  measure  should  be  adopted  by  Congress.  Georgia  newspaper  editors,  in 
the  summer  of  1350,  boldly  inserted  communications  in  their  columns,  without  any 
marks  of  disapprobation,  openly  advocating  disunion.19  Prominent  leaders  like  Jo- 


seph H.  Lumpkin,  William  L.  Mitchell,  W.  F.  Colquitt,  A.  G.  McDonald,  and  Joseph 
P.  Brown  were  known  as  disunionists  £gr  se .20  John  B.  Lamar  wrote  Howell  Cobb  that 
if  it  were  not  for  Cobb’s  influence  Georgia  would  be  more  rampant  for  disunion 
than  South  Carolina  ever  was.*"1  There  were  disunionists  per;  se.  also  in  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  and  Virginia. 

It  was  this  disunion  element  chiefly  which  was  responsible  for  the  meeting  of 
the  Nashville  Convention  of  June  1850.  The  idea  of  getting  the  South  together  in 
a Southern  convention  was  an  old  one  in  South  Carolina  at  least.21  After  the  con- 
flict over  the  Wilmot  Proviso  had  been  fairly  joined,  Calhoun  sounded  the  views  of 

tevteJV°\  o®b*  19 » 1849  » 16.  national  intelligencer. 

17.  Feb.  15,  1350.  (Feb.lTri8507™ 


}®'  W*  D:  Mosely>  of  Fla.,  to  Whitemarsh  3.  Seabrook,  May  13,  1849,  Seabrook 
I do  not  now  see  any  other  executive  to  whom  to  address  yourself  besides”’**’ 
those  you  have  already  approached.”  Franklin  H.  Elmore  to  Seabrook,  May  30,  ibid. 

( 201 

19.  John  H.  Lumpkin  to  Howell  Cobb,  July  21,  Toombs.  Stephens.  Cobb  Correspondence. 

20.  So  described  in  letter  just  referred  to  and  in  a letter  of  Oct.  5,  1350,  ibid. 

21.  Letter  of  Feb.  7,  1850,  Toombs.  Stephens.  Cobb  Correspondence. 


Unionists  had  proposed  a Southern  convention  in  1832  as  a substitute  for  nulli- 
fication. Boucher,  Nullification  Controversy  in  South  Carolina.  197-203  • It  was 
discussed  in  1 35-1838,  the  q^on~s~  f ^oUt^^  JL™ 

ln  C°nsrS8a’  and  kindred  questions  were  causing  angry  contro- 

Ih  e A ^0Un-  vfRiT-’  N:V7’  l83B*  ^ Correspondence:  Ambler,  Tho^s  Rit- 
A Study i&  Virginia  Politics,  173;  Benton,  Thirty  Years’  View,  II,  70~I~ 
was  again  mooted  in  1344,  particularly  during  the  "Texas  or  Disunion"  agitation. 


67 

leading  men  of  his  following,  throughout  the  South  upon  the  subject.22  A.  call 
could  have  been  secured  at  any  time  from  South  Carolina;  but  in  view  of  the  well 
known  disunion  proclivities  of  that  state,  it  was  deemed  advisable  that  it  should 
originate  elsewhere.  Finally  the  call  was  issued  by  a delegate  convention  in 
Jackson,  Mississippi,  October,  1849 . If  the  report  of  Daniel  Wallace,  secret  ag- 
ent of  Governor  Seabrook,  of  South  Carolina,  may  be  credited,  former  residents  of 
that  state  and  disunionists  were  very  influential  in  the  proceedings. 23 

In  South  Carolina  opposition  to  the  Nashville  Convention  was  almost  negligibl 
The  character  of  the  delegates  elected,  their  correspondence,  and  the  comments  of 
the  press  leave  little  doubt  that  it  was  intended  to  use  the  Nashville  convention 
to  promote  disunion."  In  moet  of  the  other  slaveholding  states  the  cell  of  the 
convention  at  first  met  with  hearty  response.  But  opposition  soon  developed.  Tho- 
mas H.  Benton  denounced  it  as  a disunion  plot.2'*  The  Whigs  generally  condemned  it; 
they  distrusted  the  disorganizing  proclivities  of  some  of  those  active  in  promot- 
ing it.  '’’he  compromising  spirit  shown  in  Congress  in  the  early  months  of  1850 
strengthened  the  opposition  to  the  Southern  Convention  by  making  it  appear  unnec- 


2MCon;t ’d)  . James  Hamilton  to  J.  H.  Hammond,  Oct.  4,  1844,  J..  H.  Hammond  Papers: 

LXVI ' 229  * 312 , 369  (accounts  of  meetings  in~S.C.  and  Ala.J^Ban- 
ton,  Thirty  Years’  View.  II,  613-619. 

v^«|CaT?0UAQA°7^me!Jber  ,°f  the  Alabama  legislature,  1847,  Benton,  Thirty  Years ’ 
Viey,  II,  49 8 - 7 00 ; Joseph  W.  Leaoane  to  Calhoun,  Sept.  12,  1847,  Calhoun  Corre a- 
^dejipej  Wilson  Lumpkin  to  Calhoun,  Nov.  18,  1847;  H.  W.  Connor  tTc7lho~  n7v.2, 
ld4d;  John  Cunningham  to  Calhoun,  Nov.  12;  Calhoun  to  J.  H.  Means,  Apr.  13,  1849. 

23.  D.  w.  Wallace  to  Gov.  Seabrook,  June  8,  Oct.  20,  Nov.  7,  1849,  Seabrook  MSS. 

24  a.  H.  Brisbane  to  Hammond,  Jan.  28,  1850,  J.  H.  Hammond  Papers:  National  tm- 

l^i^cer,  Apr.  20,  May  18,  June  5,  1850-  Cf.  Ham^TS?  Cttl- 

confede^c/r0me  ^ond:  the  Southern  convention  OT in  fact  a Southern 

er  ’»  m be°on®  the  one  U seQms  to  me  very  certain  is  to  become  the  oth- 

er. Quoted  in  Trent,  William  Gilmore  Simms,  179. 

25-  Manorial,  Intelligence^ , M ar . 20,  1650,  account  of  a meeting  in  st.  Louie,  Mar.  7 


. 

* t 

■ 


68 


2 6 

essary  as  well  as  dangerous.  Six  slave  states,  Louisiana,  North  Carolina,  Miss- 
ouri, Kentucky,  Maryland,  and  Delaware,  failed  to  send  delegates.  In  Georgia  a 
very  small  percentage  of  the  voters  participated  in  the  election  of  delegates. 27 
Western  Virginia  and  several  populous  counties  in  the  east  took  no  part  in  the  e - 
lection  of  delegates;  and  only  six  delegates  from  the  state  attended  the  conven- 
tion. Only  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Alabama, and  Mississippi  were  represented  by 
full  delegations,  ano  in  the  two  last  the  delegates  were  appointed  by  the  legis- 
1 atu  re  s . 


When  the  Nashville  Convention  met  the  disunionists  soon  saw  that  any  action 
looking  to  immediate  resistance  was  impossible,  and,  therefore,  worked  for  a sec- 
ond  meeting.-  Several  disunion  £er  se  speeches  were  made,  the  moat  notable  being 
that  oi  Beverly  Tucker,  of  Virginia.^0  The  resolutions  and  the  address  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  slaveholding  states  which  were  adopted  declared  in  effect  the  compromise 
measures  then  pending  in  Congress  unacceptable  and  called  for  the  extension  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  to  the  Pacific  as  a sine  qua  non.*^  The  adjourned  session  of 


toe  convention  met  in  Nashville,  November  11,  1850,  with  seven  states  represented 
by  delegations  reduced  in  size.^2  Moat  of  the  Union  men  of  the  first  session  refus- 
ad  to  attend  the  second,  and  the  disunionists  easily  dominated  it.^  The  resolu- 

26.  Cf.  Cole,  yfoig  Party  in  the  South.  157-62;  168-72. 

27.  Nati one,!  Intel 1 i ,iencer.  Apr.  11,  1350. 

28.  Ambler  Sectj^jO-j^  in  Vi^jjaia,  249;  letters  of  Win.  0.  Goode  to  R.M.T.  Hunt- 
er, Mar.  29,  Apr.  19,  May  11,  1850,  Correspondence  ojf  R.  M.  T.  Hunter. 


29.  Hanmond  to  Win.  G,  Simms,  June  16,  1850,  J..  H.  Hamnond  Papers. 

30.  DgBjaw Rgviaw , XXXI,  59-69;  reviewed  in  .So  . Quar . Rev.,  XVIII,  218-23.  See 
also  Hammond  to  Simms,  June  16,  1850,  J.  H.  Hammond  Po^. 

31.  The  resolutions  and  the  address  are  in  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Reis- 

2b->“9*  Proceedings  in  National  Intelligencer.  June  4-16,  l350~  


32.  Proceedings  in  ibid. . Nov.  16. 

33.  P erhaps  the  most  noteworthy  incident  of  the  meeting  was  the  three  hours 

oubl^vl  * G!rf9’  !f  S0Uth  Carolin»’  advocating  secession.  The  speech  was 

the1^  r *?  a pwnphlet  ond  widely  used  in  state  contests  over  acceptance  of 
tne  compromise  measures.  ^ 


, 


• ..  • ’ • 


. 


I 


. 

' 

J 


69 


tione  denounced  the  compromise  measures  which  Congress  had  adopted,  end  recommend- 
ed o congress  or  convention  of  the  slaveholding  states  "intrusted  with  full  power 
end  authority  to  deliberate  and  act  with  a view  and  intention  of  arresting  further 
aggression,  and,  if  possible,  of  restoring  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South, 
and,  if  not,  to  provide  for  their  future  safety  and  independence."  This  action 
was  intended  to  influence  the  contests  then  being  waged  in  four  states  over  the 
Compromise  of  1850. 

After  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures  spirited  contests  ensued  in 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi  between  those  v/ho  would  acqui- 
esce end  those  who  would  resist.  In  South  Carolina  the  submissionists  or  Union- 
ists were  in  a small  minority.  The  real  contest  lay  between  the  cooperationists 
and  the  separate-actioniste . The  former  believed  that  South  Carolina  should  se- 
cede, but  only  in  case  other  cotton  states  should  take  similar  action  at  the  same 
time.  The  separate-actionists  wanted  a convention  called  to  take  the  state  out 
of  the  Union,  in  company  with  others,  if  possible,  if  not,  alone.  They  professed 
to  believe  that  if  South  Carolina  should  secede  and  the  Federal  government  should 
undertake  coercion,  the  other  Southern  states  would  come  to  her  support}  if,  as 
was  possible,  the  Federal  government  should  not  adopt  coercive  measures  South  Car- 
olina would  be  prosperous  and  happy  as  an  independent  nation.  The  issue  was  not 
fairly  joined  until  after  the  failure  of  the  secession  movements  in  Georgia,  Miss- 
issippi, and  Alabama  was  certain;  then  the  contest  became  very  spirited.  At  an 
election  held  October  13  and  14,  1851,  to  choose  delegates  to  a Southern  Congre#  , 
which  the  legislature  had  called,  the  cooperaticnists  cast  25,045  votes  to  their 
opponents*  17,710  and  carried  all  of  the  congressional  district©  but  one.~^  This 
result  was  interpreted  as  instructing  the  delegates  to  the  state  convention,  who 
had  been  elected  in  February.  The  convention  accordingly  adopted  e.  preamble  and 
a resolution  which  declared  the  right  of  secession  and  resolved  that  secession 
34.  National  Intelligencer,  Oct.  18,  20,  21,  1851;  Hamer,  c£.  cit..,  123 . 


* 


• < , • f.  • ' 

. 

. 

. ;•  ' 

. 


, 


‘ 


. ■ , ■ ■ 


. 

’’  "*  v ' . • ’ r - • 

* 


« 

< . 


70 


waa  justified  by  the  course  of  the  Federal  government  but  that  South  Carolina 
’’forbears  the  exercise  of  this  manifest  right  of  self-government  from  considera- 
tion of  expediency  only.**^ 

The  contest  in  South  Carolina  evoked  the  publication  of  numerous  long  pamph- 
lets, several  long  and  laborious  articles  in  the  Southern  Quarterly  Review,  and 
the  proceedings  of  meetings  of  Southern  Rights  associations,  as  well  ns  volumin- 
ous discussion  in  the  press  and  innumerable  stump  speeches.  Both  separate-act- 
ionists  and  cooperationiste  again  and  again  represented  secession  not  only  as  a 
remedy  for  Northern  aggression  against  slavery  (although  that  wns  the  chief  con- 
sideration) but  also  as  a measure  desirable  irrespective  of  the  slavery  question. 
The  opponents  of  separate  action  demonstrated  conclusively  that  separate  secess- 
ion would  adversely  affect  the  prosperity  of  South  Carolina  and,  especially,  the 
commercial  interests  of  Charleston,  even  should  it  be  permitted  to  be  peaceful; 
but  it  was  a rare  voice  that  spoke  of  the  advantages  of  the  Union The  co-oper- 

ationists  were  charged  with  going  beyond  the  separate-actio nists  in  depicting  the 

37 

ewls  of  the  Union.  J.D.B.  DeBow,  then  of  New  Orleans,  a.  strong  Southern  rights 
man,  objected  to  moet  of  the  papers  and  documents  issued  by  the  South  Carolina 
press  because  "they  go  far  beyond  the  necessities  cf  the  case,  and  frame  an  argu- 
ment for  disunion  at  all  hazards,  even  were  the  slavery  question  closed  up  and 
amicably  settled. 

In  Georgia  Governor  Towns  acting  upon  instructions  from  the  legislature 

35 « Journal  o£  the  State  Convention  of  South  Carolina  . . 1852.  p.  18  . 

36.  The  best  arguments  against  separate  secession  are  in:  Speech  of  Mr. 

public  meeting  ojT  the  friends  of  cooperation . . .Charleston . Sept . 23 
3j.~ffi.-M* » • • ; 'Letter  from  w7  W.  Boyce  to  J.  P.  Richardson,  President  of  a conventior 
of  the  Southern  Rights  Association  of  South  Carolina  held  at  Charleston, May , 
1851,”  republished  in  National  Intelligencer.  Nov.  13,  i860;  The  Letters  of  Ari- 
£ole_,  ^by  Hon.  Win.  Elliott;  Letter  of  Gen.  James  Hamilton  ”To  the  People  of  South 
Carolina,”  Nov.  11,  1850,  National  Intelligencer.  Dec.  2,  1850. 

3/.  National  .Intelligencer.  Oct.  14,  1851,  quoting  the  Greenville,  S.  C., 
Southern  Patriot. 


38*  DeBovr* s Review.  X,  231. 


71 


called  a convention  to  meet  December  10  to  consider  the  compromise  measures* 

During  the  campaign  for  the  election  of  delegates,  the  Union  party,  which  favored 
acquiescence  in  the  compromise,  was  opposed  by  a Southern  Rights  party,  which 
counselled  resistance.  The  great  majority  of  the  Whigs  and  a respectable  minority 
of  the  Democrats  supported  the  union  candidates;  while  the  majority  of  the  Democrat 
entered  the  Southern  Rights  party.  Under  the  leadership  of  Howell  Cobb,  a.  H. 
Stephens,  and  Robert  Toombs,  the  Union  party  won  with  a large  majority  of  the  popu- 
lar vote  and  an  overwhelming  majority  in  the  convention.  After  this  victory  the 
Union  party  perfected  an  organization  and  entered  the  state  oampaign  of  1851  with 


Howell  Cobb,  Democrat,  as  their  candidate  for  governor.  The  Southern  Rights  par- 
ty nominated  as  their  candidate  ex— Governor  A.  H.  McDonald,  who  had  presided  over 
the  second  meeting  of  the  Nashville  convention.  Again  the  Unionists  won  a substan- 
tial victory. 

Similar  events  occurred  in  Mississippi.  Upon  the  passage  of  the  Compromise 

measures.  Governor  John  A.  Quitman  called  an  extra-session  of  the  legislature 

which,  in  turn,  called  a state  convention  to  meet  November  10,  1851.  A Union 

party  was  formed  to  contest  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  convention  and  the 

regular  state  elections  of  November,  1851.  It  was  composed  of  the  great  majority 

of  the  "higs  and  a minority  of  the  Democrats.  H.  S.  Foote  was  the  nominee  for 

governor.  The  Union  party  was  opposed  by  a Southern  Rights  party,  officially 

designated  the  Demoractio  State  Rights  party,  led  by  Quitman  and  Jefferson  Davis., 

and  composed  chiefly  of  Democrats.  The  Unionists  won  a sweeping  victory  in  the 

September  elections  for  delegates  to  the  convention,  and  elected  Foote  governor 

over  Jefferson  Davis  by  a small  majority  in  November.  The  convention  adopted 

resolutions  accepting  the  compromise  measures  and  declaring  secession  not  to  be  a 

39 

constitutional  right.  In  Alabama  Governor  Collier  refused  to  call  a special 

session  of  the  legislature,  vdiich  might  have  called  a state  convention.  Sentiment 

was  clearly  in  favor  of  acquiescence  in  the  compromise.  However,  Southern  Rights 
39.  Journal  of  the.  Convention  of  the  State  of  Mississi uni. . .1851,  p.  47. 


72 


associations  were  formed,  as  in  other  states,  and  the  right  of  secession  was  made 
an  issue  in  the  campaign  for  members  of  Congress  in  1851 . 

Early  in  the  contests  in  Georgia,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama,  the  leaders  of 

the  Southern  Rights  parties  saw  that  the  people  would  not  go  for  secession  and 

sought  to  shift  the  issue  from  the  expediency  to  the  constitutional  right  of  se- 
40 

cession;  thereafter  arguments  for  disunion  per  se . such  as  were  used  so  freely 
in  South  Carolina, were  used  rather  charily.  But  the  people  hnd  opportunity  to  be- 
come acquainted  with  all  the  disunion! sts  doctrines. 

Outside  the  four  states  named  the  compromise  measures  were  acquiesced  in  with- 
out noteworthy  contests.  Disunionists,  especially  disunionists  per  se.  were  in  a 
small  minority.  There  were  such,  however,  who  presented  the  disunion  arguments. 
There  was  considerable  discussion  of  the  proper  policy  tc  be  pursued  in  case  the 
cotton  states  should  secede,  and  considerable  speculation  in  regard  to  the  probable 
effects  of  separation  from  the  North  upon  the  economic  systems  of  the  respective 
states.  Too,  disunionists  in  states  most  likely  to  secede  indulged  in  much  specu- 
lation as  to  what  other  states  would  be  included  within  the  boundaries  of  the  pro- 
posed Southern  confederacy,  and  advanced  arguments  to  prove  that  it  would  be  to  the 
interest  of  Virginia,  Maryland,  or  other  particular  state  to  go  with  the  South  in 
the  event  of  a dissolution.  MAn  in  the  states  which  were  the  subjects  of  such 
speculation  had  to  taice  cognizance. 

In  analyzing  the  arguments  of  an  economic  nature  which  were  used  in  behalf  of 


40*  n°^  a raere  abstract  question:  There  was  still  a probability 

at  South  Carolina  would  secede  alone  and  the  other  Southern  states  would  then  be 
compelled  to  determine  their  course  with  reference  to  the  coercion  of  a seceded 
state.  Furthermore,  a general  recognition  of  the  right  of  secession  would  prepare 
the  way  for  future  contests  over  its  expediency. 

J1*  In  North  Carolina  the  minority  was  rather  strong.  In  the  legislature  of 
L-OO-51,  resolutions  affirming  the  constitutional  right  of  secession  were  defeated 
with  difficulty.  In  the  congressional  campaign  of  1851  the  right  of  secession  was 
an  issue;  the  opposition  gained  two  seats  in  Congress  as  a result.  Cole,  Whig. 

, JirfrX  in  South , 192;  Vfa.  K.  Boyd,  "North  Carolina  on  the  Eve  of  Secession," 
in  Amer . Hist . Assoc.  Rep  t . , 1910,  p . if}  . 


, 

< 

•'  % 

* 

1 • ■ . 0 

* < 


, : • \ r u , a 


. 


- 


, 

, 

- 


• . 


' 

. 

‘ 

• • 

• . ' ,• 


73 


secession  or  in  behalf  of  taking  advanced  ground  in  the  sectional  struggle,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  specify  whether  they  were  used  by  conditional  disunionists  or 
unconditional  disunionists.  The  arguments  used  by  the  one  class  differed  little 
from  t/ioae  UBed  by  the  other;  furthermore,  it  is  not  always  easy  to  classify  any 
given  individual  on  this  basis. 

The  mo 3t  elaborate  calculation  of  the  value  of  the  Union  made  during  the 
crisis  may  be  found  in  a long  and  well-written  pamphlet,  published  early  in  1850, 
entitled,  "The  Union,  Past  and  Future,  How  it  Works  and  How  to  Save  It,'*42  by 
Muscoe  R.  H.  Garnett,  of  Virginia,  a relative  of  R.  M.  T.  Hunter  and  Henry  A. 

Wise,  and  an  able  and  influential  politician  of  the  3iate  rights  school.  Garnett 
reviewed  the  slavery  struggle  and  found  that  the  South  had  reached  a point  where 


she  must  insist  upon  "sufficient  guarantees  for  the  observance  of  her  rights  and 
her  future  political  equality,  or  she  must  dissolve  a Union  which  no  longer  pos- 
sessed its  original  character."  He  proposed  to  put  before  the  North  what  she  woul 
lose  if  the  South  should  be  forced  to  take  the  latter  alternative.  He  calculated 
the  value  which  the  laws  discriminating  against  foreign  shipping  had  been  to  the 


North  — an  enormous  sum  according  to  his  method  of  calculation.  The  operation 
of  the  tariff  he  analyzed  in  the  usual  anti-protectionist  manner,  and  calculated 
that  between  1791  and  1845  "the  slaveholding  States  paid  $316,492,033  more  than 
their  just  share,  and  the  free  States  as  much  less.  . . " and  this  when,  accord- 
ing to  his  statement,  the  whole  amount  of  duties  collected  in  the  same  period  was 
$927,050,097*  In  the  only  other  branch  of  public  revenue  of  any  consequence,  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  the  disproportion  of  Northern  and  Southern 


42.  Published  anonymously  in  Charleston,  1850.  Republished,  several  years 
la-er,^  in  DeBo.w'.a  Review,  XVIII  and  XIX,  passim.  The  pamphlet  was  reviewed  by 
E.  Haskett  Derby,  Boston  lawyer,  in  Hunt’s  Merchants1  Ma£azineL  XXITT.  3 71—83 , 
and  in  a pamphlet  Realty,  versus.  Fiction."  B 0 at  on , 13*50.  Garnett  answered  Derby 
in  an  article  in  HuntJ^  XXIV,  403-431,  "The  Union,  Past  and  Future.  'A  Brief 
Review  Reviewed."  Derby  closed  the  argument,  Hunt’s.  XXIV,  659-681.  For  other 
reviews  of  Garnett's  pamphlet  see  Southern  Ouarterlj/  Review,  XIX,  189-226* 

2^53^9  ReZi®^  X,  132-146,  article,  "The  IlitureYf  'the  South,"  by  Thomaa’pren- 
tice  Kettell. 


< 


< 


, 

. 

' 


74 


contributions  had  been  still  greater.  From  the  subject  of  taxation  Garnett  pass- 
ed to  disbursements.  The  free  states  had  received  much  larger  donations  of  the 
public  lands.  Of  expenditures  for  collection  of  customs,  for  "bounties  on  pick- 
led  fish,  and  the  allowances  to  fishing  vessels,"  for  coast  fortifications,  for 
light  houses,  for  the  coast  survey,  for  internal  improvements,  for  Revoluti onary 
pensions,  and  even  for  the  post  office  system,  the  South  had  received  much  less 
and  the  North  much  more  than  her  proportionate  share.  The  public  debt,  held 
mostly  in  the  North,  had  been  the  source  of  yet  more  enormous  benefits  to  the 
North.  Im  summary,  he  said:  "The  heads  of  the  federal  expenditures  which  we  have 

examined  give  a fair  notion  of  the  rest;  and  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  that  while 
the  South  has  paid  seven-ninths  of  the  taxes,  the  North  has  had  seven-ninths  of 
I their  disbursements." 

According  to  Garnett  this  inequality  in  the  operation  of  the  Federal  govern- 
ment as  respects  the  sections  would  account  for  the  growth  of  cities  and  the  pros- 
perity of  the  North.  The  effect  upon  the  North  of  a dissolution  of  the  Union 
would  oe  ruinous.  She  would  have  to  rely  on  direct  taxation  to  support  her  govern- 
ment. The  South  on  the  other  hand  would  pay  less  taxes  and  disburse  them  among  her 
own  people.  She  would  conduct  her  own  commeroe  and  that  of  the  great  Northwest. 
"Norfolk  and  Charleston  and  Savannah,  so  long  pointed  at  by  the  North  as  a proof 
of  the  pretended  evils  of  slavery,  will  be  crowded  with  shipping,  and  their  ware- 
houses crammed  with  merchandise."  The  future  of  Southern  agriculture  would  be 
equally  brilliant.  By  virtue  of  her  command  of  the  great  staple  of  cotton,  her 
great  natural  advantages,  and  her  strategic  location  "midway  in  the  new  hemisphere, 
holding  the  outlets  of  Northern  commerce,  and  the  approaches  to  South  .America  and 
the  Pacific,  through  the  Gulf,"  the  Southern  confederacy  would  occupy  a powerful 
position  in  the  world.  The  pamphlet  was  concluded  with  a glorification  of  slavery 
and  agriculture  and  a depiction  of  the  demoralising  influences  of  factories;  for 
Garnet! would  not  encourage  manufactures  in  his  free  trade  republic. 

i.ore  frequently  quoted^p^rhsps,  than  Garnett’s  pamphlet  was  an  article  in 


If  : . ' ; yj;  . 

" 


. 


!■ 

■ 


75 


-7 


the  Democratic  Review.  January  1350,  written  by  the  editor,  Thomas  Prentice  Ket- 
tell,  and  entitled  "St ability  of  the  Union."43  it  was  a plea  to  the  people  of 
the  North  not  to  attack  an  institution  upon  which  their  prosperity  so  largely  de- 
pended; it  was  similar  in  strain  to  the  pleas  frequently  advanced  by  organs  of 
the  manufacturing  and  commercial  interests  of  the  North.44  Kettell  said  nothing 
about  unequal  operation  of  the  Federal  government,  but  emphasized  the  profits 
realized  by  the  North  from  monuf  acturing  for  the  South,  carrying  her  commerce, 
and  acting  as  her  banker.  The  annual  pecuniary  value  to  the  North  of  a union  wit* 
the  South,  he  estimated  in  a t able^ontaining  the  following  items: 

Freights  of  Northern  shipping  on  Southern  produce,  $40,186,178 

Profits  derived  on  imports  at  the  North  for  Southern  account,  9,000,000 
Profits  on  exchange  operations,  1*000.000 

Profits  on  Northern  manufactures  sold  at  the  South,  22,250,000 

Profits  on  Western  produce  descending  the  Mississippi,  10,000,000 

Profits  on  Northern  capital  employed  at  the  South,  6, OOP , QQQ 

Total  earnings  of  the  North  per  annum,  $88,436,728 

There  was  nothing  in  Kettell* s article  to  indicate  that  the  Southern  people 
received  any  pecuniary  advantages  from  their  union  with  the  North.  Southern  men 
quoted  his  table  not  only  to  show  why  the  North  should  grant  justice  to  the  South 
but  also  what  the  South  would  save  annually  by  a dissolution  of  the  Union. 

Oi  the  speeches  in  Congress  in  which  the  value  of  the  Union  was  calculated, 

43-  Also  in  DeB,ow*  3 Review.  VIII,  348-363;  DeBow,  Industrial  Resources. 

ITI , 357-66. 

.44.  See,  for  example,  DeBow*  3 Review.  IX,  98-100,  quoting  the  New  York 
Courier  and  ^u_i_re_rj  _ Hun  t * s Merchants*  Magazine.  XX,  292  ff.,  Letter  of  Colonel 
Alexander  Hamilton,  of  New  York. 

45-  I^o^atjvC,  Review,  XXVI,  13 . Quoted  in  Congress  by  Thomas  L.  Clingman, 

31  Cong.  1 Sess.,  200;  by  Downs,  of  Louisiana,  ibid. . App.,  172; 
by  Averett , of  Virginia,  ibid . , App.,  395;  Thomas  L.  Harris,  of  Illinois,  ibid. . 
App..,  411 . Mr.  Harris  said:  "But,  Mr.  Chairman,  several  gentlemen,  both  here 
and  in  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  (Senate),  have  relied  upon  an  article  in  a 
late  number  of  the  Democratic  Review  to  show  that  the  North  is  reaping  upward  of 
000,000  from  its  connection  with  the  South,  while  it  is  careful  not  to  show 
tha-  the  South  derives  any  benefit  from  the  North."  See  also  Aaron  V.  Brown 
Speecnea,  Congressional  gid  Political,  and  other  Writings,  302  (Governor  of  Ten- 
Feb?02oi  2hSl^~YL  Men^,  Feb.  15,  1850,  quoted  in  National  Intelligencer. 


76 


perhaps  the  most  notable  was  that  of  Thomas  L.  Clingman,  Whig,  of  North  Carolina. 

He  dwelt  upon  the  inequality  of  taxation  and  disbursements,  and  told  what  ample 
revenues  a Southern  confederacy  could  command  with  a tariff  of  thirty  or  even  twen- 
ty per  cent.  "Subjecting  the  goods  of  the  North  to  a duty,  with  those  from  other 
foreign  countries,  would  at  once  give  a powerful  stimulus  to  our  manufactures."  He 
described  the  advantages  the  Southern  states  possessed  for  cotton  manufacturing, 
and  added,  "We  should  then  have  that  diversity  of  pursuits  which  is  most  conducive 
to  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  a people."  John  C.  Calhoun  in  his  last  great 
speech,  March  4,  1850,  did  not  calculate  the  value  of  the  Union;  he  did,  however, 
reiterate  his  conviction  that  unequal  taxation  and  disbursements  had  caused  that 
loss  of  equilibrium  between  the  sections,  which,  he  said,  was  the  "great  and  pri- 
mary cause"  of  the  belief  of  the  Southern  people,  "that  they  cannot  remain,  as 
things  now  are,  consistently  with  honor  and  safety,  in  the  Union.”  Unequal  distri- 
bution of  the  taxes  and  disbursements  had  transferred  hundreds  of  millions  from 
the  South  to  the  North.  This  had  increased  the  population  of  the  latter  by  attract  * 
in  ^immigration  from  all  quarters  and  sections.  Had  the  South  retained  her  wealth 

and  her  equality  in  the  territories,  she  would  have  divided  at  least  the  immigra- 

+ . 47 

tion. 

Space  will  not  permit  an  account  of  the  contents  0?  the  numerous  pamphlets 
and  speeches  occasioned  by  the  contests  in  South  Carolina  and  elsewhere  over  the 
acceptance  of  the  compromise  measures.  One  example  will  suffice  to  illustrate 
their  tone  and  temper.  John  Townsend,  a prominent  co-operationist  of  South  Caro- 
lina, in  a vigorous  pamphlet  entitled  "The  Southern  States,  Their  Present  Peril 
and  their  Certain  Remedy,  " named  abolitionism  as  the  peril  and  secession  as  the 

46.  Co^.jlloJ^,  31  Cong.,  1 Se89.,  200-205,  speech  in  the  House,  Jan.  22, 

1850;  Thomas  L.  Clingraan,  Speeches  and  Writings,  245  ff.  Clingman  expressed 
similar  ideas  in  a speech  in  the  House,  February  15,  1851.  Speeches  and  Writings , 

275  ff.  This  speech  was  regarded  in  the  South  as  the  platform  of  the  ultraeT 
See  National  Intelligencer.  Feb.  1,  1850. 


47  • Works.  IV,  542-74. 


' 

, 

, 

' 


' 


■ ■,  •. 


' 

. 

t 

* 

i 


. . • I 


77 


remedy;  but  it  was  a remedy  for  more  than  the  dangers  threatening  slavery.  In  the 
usual  3train  he  told  of  the  unequal  operation  of  the  Federal  government  and  its 
effects.  He  described  the  vast  resources  of  the  South  and  said: 

"How  different  will  be  the  aspect  of  things  in  the  whole  South,  when  this 
tide  of  wealth  is  dammed  up  within  our  own  borders,  and  made  to  roll  back  among 
our  own  people;  and  when  our  immense  capital  is  employed  by  our  own  merchants  in 
establishing  a direct  trade,  between  our  own  Southern  ports  and  our  customers  all 
over  the  world....  The  arts  will  revive,  manufactures  will  spring  up  around  us; 
our  agriculture  will  rear  its  drooping  head,  our  commerce  will  expand,  mechanic 
labor,  meeting  with  ample  rewards  will  pour  in  upon  us,  and  emigration  ( sic.) . no 
longer  discouraged  by  the  uninviting  aspect  of  our  country  will  flock  to  our 
shores.”45 

In  the  United  States  Senate,  R.  B.  Rhett,  who  had  been  elected  to  fill  the 
vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of  Calhoun,  was  led  by  an  attack  made  upon  him  by 
Henry  3.  Foote,  of  Mississippi , to  make  a long  speech  explaining  why  he  was  a 
secessionist  — he  was  the  leader  of  the  separate-actionists  in  his  state.  He  re- 
viewed the  history  of  the  struggles  over  slavery,  and  charged  that  the  Northern 
people  were  animated  by  a desire  for  its  final  extinction.  But  the  action  of  Con- 
gress with  respect  to  slavery  in  the  territories  (that  is,  the  Compromise  measures) 
he  said,  was  only  a sequence  in  a course  of  policy  inimical  to  the  South  which 
had  been  pursued  many  years.  "If  I mistake  not,  from  the  very  foundation  of  this 
government  to  thi3  day,  the  operation  of  it  in  its  financial  and  pecuniary  rela- 
tions, has  had  but  one  uniform  tendency;  and  that  has  been,  to  aggrandize  the  North 
at  the  expense  of  the  South.”  He  traced  the  history  of  the  tariff  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  reviewed  the  whole  subject  of  taxation  and  disbursements  in  a manner 
very  similar  to  that  of  Carnett's  pamphlet.  "Is  it  wonderful,”  he  asked,  "that 

48.  P.  17.  Other  secessionist  pamphlets  or  articles  were:  Wrn.  H.  Treaeott, 
1112.  PfisiUon  and  Course  of  the  South:  E.  B . Bryan,  The  Rightful  Remedy.  Addressed 
t£,  the.  S^vj^ol^ers  of.  the  South;  (A.  G.  Magrath) , Letter  on  Southern  Wrongs  and 
5S Addressed  to  the  Hon . W.  J..  Grayson  in  reply  to  his  Let~te"r  to 
IhS.  Governor  of  South  Carolina  on.  the  Pis  solution  o f the  UnionV 

49-  Foote  charged  Rhett  with  having  said  that  he  expected,  through  the  agency 
of  the  Nashville  Convention,  by  making  demands  to  which  he  knew  Congress  would  not 
accede,  to  break  up  the  Union.  Cong.  Globe.  32  Cong.,  1 Seas.,  96. 


78 


under  such  a course  of  policy,  the  poorest  section  of  the  Union  should  be  the 
richest,  and  the  South  should,  with  all  her  vast  resources,  linger  in  her  pros- 
perity?” He  traced  the  decline  of  Southern  commerce,  and  estimated  the  value  to 

the  North  of  the  monopoly  of  the  coasting  trade.  ’’The  South,”  he  said,  ”is  nothin, 

50 

else  now  but  the  very  best  colony  of  the  North.” 

Rhett' s colleagues  understood  his  speech  to  be  an  argument  for  secession  per 

51 

se.  Senator  Cass  so  took  it,  and  condemned  it.  Senator  Mason,  of  Virginia, 

declared  that  his  state  had  no  sympathy  with  those  who  "preferred  disunion.”52 

Senator  Downs,  of  Louisiana,  asked  why  discuss  further  the  compromise  measures 

when  Rhett  had  himself  admitted  that  he  did  not  find  in  them  sufficient  reason 

53 

to  justify  the  disunion  movement  which  he  had  set  on  foot  in  South  Carolina. 

In  the  House  E.  K.  Smart,  of  Maine,  replied  in  detail,  with  a yet  more  imposing 

array  of  statistics  than  Rhett  had  used,  to  the  latter’s  speech  and  to  one  of 

scmewhat  similar  tone  which  had  been  made  in  the  House  by  A.  5.  Brown,  of  Missis- 
54 

sippi.  He  did  so,  he  explained,  because  ”1  have  often  thought  that  a fair  and 
candid  investigation  of  the  benefits  and  advantages  of  this  Government,  enjoyed  by 
the  South  would  disarm  the  spirit  of  disunion;  that  our  southern  friends,  by  an 
examination  of  the  facts,  would  be  induced  to  demand  less  of  the  North.” 

Unionists  did  not  fail  to  seek  other  causes  than  the  quarrel  over  slavery  and 
the  fears  for  the  security  of  that  institution  for  the  existence  of  disunion  sen- 
timent in  the  South.  F.  A.  P.  Barnard,  in  an  address  to  the  citizens  of  Tuscaloo- 
sa, Alabama,  said  he  believed  there  were  causes  much  deeper  than  the  slavery  agi- 
tation for  the  war  which  had  been  waged  to  the  knife  against  the  Union.  The  agi- 
tators had  seized  upon  the  soreness  produced  in  the  Southern  mind  by  the  infringe- 

50.  Cong.,  Globe.  32  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  Appx. , 42-8. 

51.  Ibid. . 32  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  146. 

52.  Ibid,.,  32  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  Appx.,  49. 


53.  Ibid. . Appx.,  98. 

54.  Ibid.,  Appx.,  464-71 


* 


' 


79 


merit  of  undeniable  rights  as  the  most  avilable  means  of  accomplishing  their  ulter- 
ior designs.  He  retold  the  story  of  South  Carolina  nullification,  and  said  the 
people  of  that  state  were  still  bitter  from  the  old  feud.  A conviction  prevailed, 
he  said,  that  the  Union  had  been  unequal  in  its  benefits.  "Such  a conviction  has 
been,  is  probably  at  this  moment,  partaken  by  very  many  who  feel  no  disposition  to 
rush  to  disunion  as  a remedy.  Indeed  the  impreseion  seems  extensively  to  exist, 
that,  by  the  operation  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  through  Federal  Legislation, 
the  South  has  been  made  in  some  sort,  tributary  to  the  North."  He  told  of  South- 
ern dependence  upon  the  North  for  manufactures,  of  the  sensitiveness  of  the  South- 
ern people  about  the  matter,  and  their  analysis  of  the  causes  of  their  dependence. 
"From  this  condition  of  things  our  people  have  become  impatient  to  be  free;  and 
this  it  is... .more  truly  than  any  other  existing  evil,  which  has  caused  the  word 
disunion  to  be  of  late  so  often  and  so  lightly  spoken  among  U3,  and  the  thought  of 
what  it  signifies  to  be  contemplated  with  so  little  horror."^  The  Richmond  Whig 
thought  much  of  the  diseatisf action  in  South  Carolina  had  originated  in  having  at- 
tributed to  the  Federal  government  consequences  which  were  rather  attributable  to 
the  competition  of  fresher  and  more  fertile  states  of  the  South,  engaged  in  the 
culture  of  the  same  staple  as  herself.^ 

The  Unionists  in  the  cotton  states  in  their  contests  with  the  Southern  Right 
parties  found  their  best  tactics  to  be  to  defend  the  compromise  measures,  appeal 
to  the  patriotism  of  the  masses,^' impeach  the  motives  of  Southern  Rights  leaders, 
and  picture  secession  as  a measure  that  would  bathe  the  nation  in  blood.  They 
55 • Oration  Delivered  before  the  Citizens  of  Tu scaloosn.  Alabama.  July  4,  1851 . 

56*  March  5,  1851  • A similar  statement  is  in  an  editorial  of  March  22. 

57*  Henry  w . Hilliard  said:  "The  value  of  the  Union  #iich  binds  these  states  to- 
gether is  incalculable;  its  priceless  value  defies  all  the  ordinary  methods  of 
computation;  it  is  consecrated  by  battles,  and  triumphs  and  glories,  which  belong 

to  the  past, it  secures  to  us  innumerable  blessings;  it  looks  forward  to  a 

future  still  more  glorious  than  the  past."  Con?;.  C-lobe.  31  Coni?..  1 Sees. 

Appx.,  34. 


< 


! 


• 

• 

« 

* 

• 

' 


( 

r 

- 


•••* 


— 


• 

( 

• 

, 

♦ 

« ' 

• 

. 


; 

; 

- ; j£gu^ 

,1:  W3 


, 


80 

showed  that  secession  meant  division  of  the  South;  for  the  border  states  could  not 
be  expected  to  secede  In  particular  localities  they  pointed  out  how  separation 
would  injure  established  commercial  and  agricultural  interests.  In  general  they 
did  not  find  it  necessary  to  refute  at  length  the  doctrine  that  the  prosperity  of 
the  South  suffered  from  an  unequal,  operation  of  the  Federal  government.  No  doubt 
many  shared  this  view  to  some  extent.  Yet  there  was  a fundamental  divergence  in 
the  views  of  the  two  groups  upon  the  economic  effects  of  the  Union  upon  the  sec- 
tions. Unionists  were  inclined  to  depict  the  unexampled  peace  and  progress  in 
wealth  and  strength  of  the  great  republic  and  to  consider  the  South  a partaker 

59 

therein The  Mobile  PAily  Advertiser  said  Alabama  was  never  more  prosperous. 

"Why  cannot  secession  orators  be  serious?"60  Said  H.  S.  Foote  of  Mississippi:  "It 
is  sufficient  for  us  to  know  that  the  Union  is  of  inappreciable  value  to  every 
portion  of  this  wiuespread  Republic;.  ...That  the  general  action  of  the  government 
has  been  more  or  less  unequal  and  oppressive  to  our  local  interests  in  the  South, 
cannot  be  denied.'*'"  In  Georgia  particularly,  the  most  prosperous  of  the  cotton 
states,  was  the  plea  effective  that  the  state  owed  its  prosperity  to  the  Union. 

The  Richmond  Whig  ascribed  the  Union  victory  in  Georgia  to  prosperity  — » the  refusal 
of  the  people  to  be  convinced  that  the  Union  had  inflicted  any  injury  upon  them. 
General  James  Hamilton,  who  travelled  through  the  cotton  states  in  the  compromise 
year,  made  a similar  diagnosis.  In  Georgia,  and  Alabama  the  high  price  of  cotton 
had  neutralized  the  disunion  sentiment,  while  Louisiana  had  "an  average  sugar  crop 
and  would  acquiesce."0^ 

58.  Speech  of  Senator  Jere  Clemens  in  Huntsville,  Alabama,  Nov.  4,  1850,  in 
National  Intelligencer.  Ncv.  10;  Letter  from  Joel  R.  Poinsett  to  the  People  of  S.C. 
Mercwry.  Dec  . 5 . 

. ..  W.  J.  Grayson,  Letter  to  the  Governor  of  South  Carolina  on  the  Dissolution 
ihjL  Uni£r*_  p.8.  This  is  one  of  the  best  of  the*Union  pamphlets. 

60.  Quoted  in  the  National  Intelligencer.  Dec.  6,  1850. 

61.  Con&.,  Globe,  3 2 Cong.,  1 Seas.,  Appx.,  59,  reply  to  Rhett.  62.Mar.5,l85l . 
63.  "To  the  People  of  South  Carolina",  in  National  Intellig-f ncer.  Dec.  2,  1850 


81 

Unionists,  in  so  far  as  they  admitted  "Southern  decline,"  were  disposed  to 
emphasize  explanations  for  it  other  them  the  fiscal  action  of  the  Federal  govern- 
ment. The  majority  of  them  were  Whigs,  who  had,  in  general,  supported  those  pro- 
tective and  fiscal  measures  to  which  disunionists  ascribed  the  woes  of  the  South. 
The  Unionists  dwelt  upon  such  causes  for  lagging  prosperity  as  overproduction  of 
cotton,  lack  of  diversity  in  agriculture,  and  the  failure  to  encourage  home  manu- 
factures. They  showed  how  the  older  states  had  suffered  from  the  emigration  of 
their  citizens  to  the  richer  and  fresher  lands  of  the  Southwest.  Up  to  this  time 
at  least,  the  Whigs  had  given  more  earnest  support  than  the  Democrats  to  those 
movements  for  the  diversification  of  industry  which  have  been  described  in  previou 
chapter s;  and  at  this  juncture  they  advocated  it  as  a better  method  than  secession 
for  securing  the  rights  and  prosperity  of  the  South. 

The  position  of  New  Orleans  as  an  exporting  and  importing  center  for  the  Mis- 
sissippi valley  plainly  operated  against  the  growth  of  disunion  sentiment  in  Lou- 
isiana: men  of  that  state  insisted  that  the  valley  could  not  be  divided.0^  Few 
from  Kentucky  and  Missouri  calculated  the  value  of  the  Union.  Humphrey  Marshall, 
of  Kentucky,  offered  an  explanation  for  the  strong  attachment  of  those  states  for 
the  Union.  There  was  a region,  he  said,  where  cotton  and  sugar  did  not  grow,  and 
where  manufactures  and  navigation  were  not  the  only  employments.  "The  interests 
of  that  people  are  identical,  no  matter  whether  they  live  in  a free  State  or  a 
slave  State,  and  they  cannot  be  induced  to  sacrifice  their  welfare  or  their  friend- 
ship  for  the  triumph  of  any  extreme  doctrine  about  slavery  ."^Governor  Crittenden 
expressed  the  same  idea:  "To  Kentucky  and  other  Western  'States  in  the  Valley  of 
the  Mississippi,  the  Union  is  indispensable  to  their  commercial  interests. 

64.  Ante;  F.A.P.  Barnard,  Oration  Delivered  before  the  Citizens  of  Tuscaloosa.  Ala  - 

lyJ-J.  jj>  lft5l » Cf.  Cole,  Whig  Party  in  the  South,  206-211. 

65.  Speech  of  Downs  in  the  Senate,  Cong.  Globe ,31  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  Appx.,  171. 

66.  Ibid . . Appx.,  409* 

67.  Coleman,  The  Li_fe_  of  John  J . Crittenden,  I,  250-2.  Cf . speech  of  Henrv  Clay 
m -he  Senate,  Cong . Globe , 31  Cong.,  1 Seas.,  Appx.,  127. 


....  - — — - - ---- - - ~ 


82 


In  North  Carolina  th©  disunion  per  se  arguments  were  well  refuted.  The  ab- 
sence of  identity  of  interests  between  the  two  Carolinas  was  occasionally  empha- 
sized. Said  Congressman  Stanley,  Whig:  " ws  are  invited  to  contemplate  the 

glories  of  a Southern  Confederacy,  in  which  Virginia  and  South  Carolina  are  to 
have  great  cities,  to  be  supported  by  the  colony  or  plantation  of  North  Carolina?" 
Perhaps  in  no  state  other  than  the  older  cotton  states  was  a greater  disposition 
shown  to  listen  to  the  unconditional  disunion  arguments  than  in  eastern  Virginia* 
But  there  were  strong  deterrent  influences:  trade  both  with  the  North  and  South; 

prospects  of  valuable  commercial  relations  with  the  West  when  the  great  internal 
improvement  system  already  projected  should  make  Virginia  the  "thoroughfare  and 
rendezvous  of  our  great  and  united  sisterhood  of  states";  ^and,  more  important, 
the  devotion  to  the  Union  of  the  western  part  of  the  state,  whose  economic  inter- 
ests were  similar  to  those  of  other  parts  of  the  Ohio  valley  rather  than  to  those 
of  the  South 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  disunion  sentiment  and  a disposition  to  put 
a low  estimate  upon  the  value  of  the  Union  were  not  uniformly  distributed  through- 
out the  slaveholding  states.  It  is  true  that  the  states  in  which  the  strongest 
secession  movements  developed  were  those  in  which  the  ratios  of  black  to  white 
population  were  highest.  (However,  it  is  difficult  to  demonstrate  that  within 
such  states  secession  sentiment  was  especially  strong  in  the  black  belts.)  But 
the  states  in  which  the  disunion  movements  were  strongest  were  also  the  states 
most  dependent  commercially  and  industrially  — or,  to  use  Calhoun’s  phrase,  they 
were  the  "exporting  states".  They  were  the  states  too  in  which  the  doctrine  thet 
the  Federal  government  operated  to  make  one  section  tributary  to  the  other  in  an 
economic  way,  had  early  found  widespread  acceptance. 

The  evidence  in  regard  to  party  affiliations  is,  perhaps,  more  conclusive  as 

63.  Cong,  fllobe , 31  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  Appx.,  409- 

6?.  Letter  from  William  C.  Rives,  U.  S.  Minister  to  France,  in  National  In- 
telligencer. May  1,  IB50. 

70.  Cf.  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia.  243 f. 


* 


. 


: 


t , 


. 


, 

• t 

• 

• 

< 

< 

• 

• 

. , 

. 

< 


83 


to  motives.  In  the  South  as  a whole  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Whig  party, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  Unionist  and  accepted  the  compromise  measures  without  much 
dissatisfaction.  It  would  seem  that  the  disunionists  of  1850,  and  those  who  con- 
templated disunion  with  complacency,  were  chiefly  of  the  Calhoun  wing  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party;  many  of  them  had  been  Nulli ficationists*  The  Union  Democrats  of  1850, 
on  the  other  hand,  were  chiefly  0?  Jackson,  Benton,  and  Van  Buren  antecedents. 

In  South  Carolina  the  alignment  is  not  difficult  to  see.  The  Unionists  were, 
in  the  main,  the  remnants  of  the  Whig  party.  Of  the  leaders  of  the  Union  group, 

J.  L.  Petigru,  B.  F.  Perry,  Judge  John  Benton  O'Neall,  Richard  Yeadon,  and  W«  J. 
Grayson  were  Whigs,  Joel  R.  Poinsett  was  a Jackson  Democrat;  all  hod  been  Union 
men  in  1832.  Waddy  Thompson,  Whig,  was  the  one  conspicuous  example  of  a former 
Nullifior  turned  Union.  Of  the  separate-actionist 3 all  the  prominent  leaders,  who 
had  figured  in  Nullification  day9,  had  been  Nullifiers;  in  this  category  fell  R.  B. 
Rhett,  B,  F.  Duncan,  F.  W.  Pickens,  I.  E.  Holmes,  W.  F.  Colcock,  A.  Burt,  and 
Maxcy  Gregg.  With  one  exception  these  men  had  been  leaders  also  of  the  Bluffton 
movement,  of  1844.  Of  the  co-operationi sis,  of  1851,  the  majority  of  the  prominent 
leaders  had  been  Nullifiers;  of  this  class  were  A.  P.  Butler,  J.  H.  Hammond,  Jame3 
Hamilton,  F.  L.  Wardlaw,  and  W.  W.  Boyce.  Other  prominent  co-operationists  had 
been  Unionists  in  1832;  in  this  class  were  ex-Govemor  J.  P.  Richardson,  Daniel  E. 
Huger,  Richard  I.  Manning,  C.  G.  Mernminger,  and  James  Chesnut.  L angdon  Cheves 
had  been  a co-operationist  in  1332.  All  of  the  secessionists  named  were  Democrats 
except  William  S.  Preston,  co-dperationi at , who  was  a state  rights  Whig  and  former 
Nullifier. 

In  July,  1850,  John  H.  Lumpkin,  of  Georgia,  wrote  Howell  Cobb:  "All  who  are 
for  resistance  and  for  disunion  will  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  democratic  party; 
and  if  their  history  should  be  known,  they  will  be  found  out  to  be  old  Nullifiers 
in  1332  . "71  > 

71.  July  21.  Tooraba,  Stephens.  Cobb  Correspondence . 208 . 


84 


Other  Union  Democrats  complained  of  those  "secession  views  which  have  long  been 
entertained  try  a school  of  Southern  politicians  vhich  have  always  weakened,  never 
benefited  or  strengthened  the  Democratic  party. The  Union  Democrats  were  almost 
exclusively  from  the  northern  counties,  which  had  never  accepted  the  teachings  of 
the  Carolina  school.  Such  prominent  leaders  of  the  Southern  rights  party  ae  C.  J. 
McDonald,  George  M.  Troup,  Joseph  H.  Lumpkin,  W.  F.  Colquitt,  H.  L.  Benning,  Will- 
iam H.  Stiles,  J.  N.  Bethune,  and  John  A.  Jones  had  long  been  leaders  of  the  state 
rights  wing  of  the  Democratic  party.  However,  in  Georgia  perhape  to  a greater  ex- 
tent than  any  other  Southern  state  the  Whig  party  had  retained  it 3 state  rights 
element;  and  this  element,  with  exceptions  such  as  J.  M.  Berrien,  co-operated  with 
their  fellows  in  the  Union  movement  of  1850.  The  latter  fact  probably  explains 
why  the  Union  Convention  of  1850  did  not  deny  the  constitutional  right  of  secessior 
as  did  the  Unionists  in  Alabama  and  Mississippi:  Such. state  rights  Whigs  as  A.  H. 

Stephens  and  Robert  Toombs  believed  in  it.1"^ 

In  Alabama  the  nullifying  state  rights  faction  went  into  the  Democratic  party 
with  Calhoun  about  1 G 40 ; after  that  time  the  state  rights  element  of  the  Whig  par- 
ty was  comparatively  small.  But  the  cleavage  between  the  Calhoun  wing  of  the  Dem- 
ocrats, led  by  such  men  as  Dixon  H.  Lewis,  J.  M.  Calhoun,  W.  L.  Yancy,  the  Elmores, 
and  David  Hubbard,  and  the  Jackson  wing  whose  leaders  were  Wro.  R.  King,  Benjamin 
Fitzpatrick,  Jere  Clemens,  and  W.  R.  7/.  Cobb,  etc.,  remained  clear  for  years.  ^ In 
1845  Dixon  H.  Lewis  wrote  of  the  "Calhoun  wing  of  the  Parjjy."  It  was  this  wing  of 

72.  John  E.  Ward  and  Henry  R.  Jackson  to  Howell  Cobb,  Feb.  28,  1852,  in  ibid. 

73  • Cf . Hodgson,  The  Cradle  of  the.  Confederacy.  283  . 

74.  Ibid.,  chap.  XI;  Garrett,  Remini sconces  of  Public  Men  in  Alabama.  29?.  The 
autnor , in  telling  why  David  Hubbard,  of  Lawrence,  a Calhoun  man,  never  attained 
the  senatorship,  says:  "The  same  reasons  which  influenced  the  Jackson  Democracy  in 
withholding  their  support  in  former  days  from  the  men  who  came  over  with  Mr.  Cal- 
houn, operated  against  him  in  these  aspirations;...."  Garrett  constantly  recog- 
nizes the  division  in  the  Democratic  party. 


the  party  which  formed  the  Southern  Rights  party  in  1851  and  sought  to  prepare  the 
state  for  secession.  The  other  wing  not  only  allied  with  the  Whigs  to  form  the 
Union  party  but  denied  the  constitutional  right  of  secession. 7;) 

In  Mississippi  the  situation  wee  very  similar  to  that  in  Alabama-  -T.  Wil- 
cox, a Union  Democrat  elected  in  1851,  identified  the  Southern  Rights  men  of  his 
state,  whom  he  denounced  as  disunionists,  as  "old-line  Democrats."  This  term  he 
defined  as  designating  those  whom  Jackson  had  driven  from  the  party  in  1832-33  . Af- 
ter that  year,  ho  said,  they  had  acted  with  the  Whigs  until  1840,  when  they  follow 

7 6 

ed  J.  C.  Calnoun  back  into  the  Democratic  ranks.  This  description  is  accurate 
with  the  exception  that  it  takes  no  account  of  a small  element  in  the  Whig  party 
which  had  not  followed  Calhoun  in  1840,  but  which  nevertheless  co-operated  with  the 
Southern  Rights  party  in  1851 . The  leader  of  this  party  was  John  A.  Quitman,  a 
native  of  South  Carolina,  a nullifier,  and  a supporter  of  Calhoun  against  Van  Buren 
in  1844. 77 

In  no  state  can  the  division  in  the  Democratic  ranks  be  more  clearly  seen 
than  in  Virginia.  There  the  Calhoun  men  constituted  a well  defined  group.  For  a 
number  of  years  they  acted  almost  as  a third  party  holding  the  balance  of  power  be- 
tween the  Whigs  and  the  Democrats.  In  1343-44  they  tried  to  secure  the  Democratic 
nomination  for  the  presidency  for  Calhoun.  In  184?  they  were  able,  by  taking  ad- 
vantage of  factional  fights  in  the  general  assembly,  to  elect  R.  M.  T.  Hunter  and 

75*  Hodgson,  0£.  cit . . 294-296. 

76*  Cong.  Globe.  32  Cong.,  1 Seas.,  Appx.,  282-284. 

77*  Claiborne,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  A.  Qditman.  211-15, --a  circu- 
lar written  by  Quitman  for  his  political  friends,  18T5.  The  Tact ional  differences 
in  Mississippi  may  be  traced  quite  readily  in  the  correspondence  of  Quitman.  In 
1835,  he  wrote:  "....the  people  of  this  state  are  one  third  for  Van  Buren,  one 

third  Nullifiers,  and  one  third  Whigs."  P.  139.  In  December,  1838,  he  wrote:  "I 
shall  co-operate  freely  and  boldly  with  all  genuine  Republicans,  be  they  Democrats 
or  Nullifiers,  in  asserting  the  principles  to  which  I have  alluded."  p.  167.  In 

1845:  "In  politics  I hold  much  the  same  position  as  Calhoun  and  Troup In 

184*+  I preferred,  as  I had  before  and  do  now,  Mr.  Calhoun  to  any  other  mail  for  the 
presidency,  but  I acquiesced  in  the  nomination  of  Van  Buren,  and,  until  the  appear- 
ance of  his  anti-Texas  letter,  gave  him  my  zealous  support." 


It 


f 


< 


86 

J.  Y.  Mason  to  the  Senate.  Thereafter  they  gradually  tightened  their  grip  upon 
the  Democratic  party/  ' But  in  1850,  and  later,  leaders  still  spoke  of  the  "Cal- 
houn wing"  or  the  "States  Rights"  party  almost  as  if  it  were  a distinct  organ! za- 
7° 

tion.  Their  strength  lay  chiefly  in  eastern  Virginia.  Their  leaders  were  very 
able;  among  them  were  R.  M . T.  Hunter,  J.  Y.  Mason,  James  A.  Sefidon,  Henry  A.  Wise 
Lewis  E.  Harvie,  John  Tyler,  Beverly  Tucker,  William  C.  Goode,  Wm . F.  Gordon,  Wil- 
loughby Newton,  Richard  K.  Cralle,  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  and  Edmund  Ruffin.  It  was 

this  wing  that  supported  the  Nashville  Convention  and  furnished  the  majority  of 

80 

the  delegates;  in  this  wing  virtually  all  of  the  Virginia  disunion! st s,  and 
all  those  of  disunionist  leanings  in  1850  were  to  be  found. 

Now,  to  be  sure , the  State  Rights  party  claimed  to  be  champions  and  defenders 
of  slavery  liar  ex_ce_ll_€nce . as  well  as  of  other  Southern  interests.  But  this  claim 
was  not  admit  tea  by  tneir  opponents,  end  had  no  basis  in  actual  property  interest- 
in  slaves.  The  Whig  party  held  at  least  its  proportionate  share  of  the  slavehold- 
ers. Whig  leaders  claimed,  with  justification  It  seems,  that  most  of  the  large 
slaveholders  belonged  to  their  party,  Whigs  had,  of  course,  reasons  for  support- 
ing the  compromise  measures  originating  in  the  party  considerations:  The  adminis- 

tration under  whose  auspices  the  measures  were  enacted  was  Whig.  But  after  all 
qualifications  are  made,  no  explanation  of  the  alignment  of  the  parties  nnd  fact- 
ions in  the  South  upon  the  question  of  Union  or  disunion  is  complete  which  does 
not  take  in  account  the  previous  history  and  the  origin  of  the  parties. 

?8,  These  statements  are  based  upon  numerous  letters  in  the  Correspondence  of 
John  C.  Calhoun,  Coiirgspondenoe  of  R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  and  H.  Hammond  Papers  as 
well  as  newspaper  material,  etc.,  and  agree,  I believe,  with  Ambler,  Thomas  Ritchie 
and  Sectionalism  in  Vi rginia.  ~ ~ 

* £,•  M.  T.  Hunger  Papers,  especially  letters:  James  A . Seddon  to  Hunter, 

. 1q*  1 84-8 ; L.  W.  Tazewell  to  Hunter,  Aug.  18,  1850;  Seddon  to  Hunter,  Feb.  7, 

lop2*  ’ 

Tucker,  Goode,  Gordon,  and  Newton  were  delegates  to  the  first  session  of 
the  Nashville  Convention,  and  Gordon  was  the  only  representative  of  Virginia  in 
the  second,  0 


CHAPTER  IV 


Discussion  c f Plans  for  Estohli eking  Pi rect 
Trade  with  Europe . I9A7-I86q . 

.Although  for  a number  of  years  after  the  direct  trade  conventions  of  the 
1830* s no  attempts  were  made  to  revive  Southern  commerce  comparable  to  the  efforts 
of  those  conventions,  at  no  time  did  the  people  of  the  South  become  reconciled  to 
commercial  dependence  upon  the  North.  The  suspension  of  the  discussion  of  direct 
trade  was  due  to  the  general  stagnation  of  business  and  the  distrust  of  all  enter- 
prise which  characterized  a period  of  several  years  following  the  commercial  cri- 
sis of  1837. 

In  l045  and  1846  there  was  discussion  in  Congress  and  the  country  at  large 
of  the  policy  of  adopting  the  warehousing  system.  The  system  permitted  goods  im- 
ported from  abroad  to  be  placed  in  bonded  warehouses  with  payment  of  duties  when 
the  goods  were  withdrawn,  unless  withdrawn  for  re-export,  in  which  case  no  duties 
were  to  be  collected.  The  warehousing  system  met  with  general  favor  in  the  South, 
anu  over  enthusiastic  individuals  hailed  it  as  the  panacea  which  would  restore 
Southern  foreign  commerce.1  The  cash  duties  system,  they  said,  prevented  Southern 
merchants,  who  generally  had  limited  capital  and  credit,  from  importing  for  re- 
exportation, and  gave  the  advantage  tc  Northern  importers  of  larger  means.  The 
warehousing  system  would  enable-  New  Orleans  to  become  the  half-way  house  between 
Europe  and  Mexico,  and  Charleston  to  conduct  the  commerce  between  Europe  and  the 
Test  Indies.  According  to  the  memorial  to  Congress  from  the  New  Orleans  Chamber 

of  Commerce,  the  want  of  s.  warehousing  system  had  driven  the  Mexican  trade  to  Ha- 

2 

vana.  J.  C.  B.  DeBow  thought  that,  if  there  w’as  ever  to  be  any  foreign  commerce 
in  the  South,  such  a system  must  have  a great  influence  in  bringing  it  about  .3  Con- 
gress enacted  a warehousing  law,  which  became  effective  August  6,  1846/'  Being  a 
Literary  Messenger,  XI,  508,567,577 .584,  articles  by  Lieut.  M.  F. 

Maury. 

2.  DeBow’  a Review.  II,  408.  3.  Ibid.,  HI,  193. 

4.  Acts  and  Resolutions,  29  Cong.,  1 Sees.,  p.  83. 


• 

< 

« 

< 

, 

' 


■ ) ■ 


■ 


( 


I 

* 


. 

* 


. 


- 


‘ 


’ ■ 


< • 


88 


step  in  the  direction  of  free  trade,  it  undoubtedly  benefited  commerce;'  but, 
needless  to  say,  more  than  a warehousing  law  was  necessary  to  effect  a revolution 
in  the  course  of  Southern  trade. 

This  discussion  of  the  warehousing  system  was  followed  shortly  by  a general 
renewal  of  discussion  of  direct  trade  with  Europe-  DeBow,  in  1847,  said  the  sub- 
ject was  once  again  receiving  attention;0  numerous  long  articles  in  his  newly 
founded  DeBow 's  Review  testify  to  the  revival  of  interest.  DeBow  republished  the 

proceedings  of  the  Augusta  and  Charleston  conventions  and  the  reports  of  McDuffie, 

7 

Hayne,  Elmore,  and  Longstreat.  "We  would  recall  those  scenes  and  times,"  he  said. 
But  whereas  in  those  times  the  direct  trade  movement  tfas  pretty  much  confined  to 
the  Atlantic  seaboard,  now  it  had  spread  to  the  Gulf  ports  and  the  entire  South. 
Until  l86l  nothing  was  recognized  with  more  steadfastness  and  unanimity  as  a prop. 

er  element  in  the  policy  not  only  of  seaports  but  of  the  South  as  a section  than 
the  encouragement  of  direct  trade.  It  was  a subject  of  constant  discussion  in 
the  press.  Conventions  were  held  to  consider  plans  for  promoting  it.  Direct 
trade  held  a prominent  place  in  oil  the  sessions  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Con- 
vention, which  met  regularly  from  1352  to  l85V;  and  was  given  consideration  in  the 
less  regular  Cotton  Planters'  Convention.  Plans  for  achieving  it  demanded  consi- 
deration from  chambers  of  commerce,  city  councils,  and  state  legislatures,  as  well 
as  from  individuals. 

No  doubt  a chief  explanation  for  the  renewal  of  discussion  of  direct  trade 
about  1847  was  the  reawakened  spirit  of  progress  in  the  South.  The  latter  half  of 
the  fifth  decade  witnessed  a great  revival  of  prosperity  and  enterprise  in  all 
parte  of  the  Union.  During  the  period  numerous  railroad  projects  took  form,  and 
construction  upon  a large  scale  was  undertaken.  With  the  extension  of  our  nation- 

5.  Lieutenant  Maury  wrote  a few  years  later:  "These  importers  (direct)  and 
the  warehousing  system  are  recovering  back  for  the  South  a portion  of  the  direct 
trade."  DeBow,  Industrial  Resources.  Ill,  14, 


6.  DeBow' s Review.  Ill,  557. 


7.  Ibid.,  558. 


, 


~ ' » l- 


, 


« 


, 

. 

, 


. 


V 


. 


' 


89 


al  boundaries  to  the  Pacific  on d the  discovery  of  gold  in  California,  grandioee 
schemes  were  conceived  for  establishing  communication  with  the  Pacific  coast  by 
rail  or  water.  Everywhere  there  w as  rapid  recovery  from  the  depression  of  the 
early  forties.  In  the  South  one  manife station  of  the  new  spirit  was  a revival  of 
the  direct  trade  movement.  And  all  through  the  period  under  consideration  the 
comparative  progressiveness  of  the  South  caused  to  stand  out  more  sharply  the  ob- 
stacles to  progress  for  which  commercial  dependence  was  believed  responsible,  and 
intensified  the  desire  to  be  free  from  then. 

The  public  discussion  cannot  be  said  to  have  contributed  materially  to  on 
understanding  of  the  causes  for  the  superior  commercial  development  of  the  North. 
In  fact  it  added  little  to  the  analyses  made  in  the  series  of  direct  trade  con- 
ventions of  1837-1839*  The  discussion  did  contribute,  however,  to  a better  under- 
standing of  the  evils  in  the  Southern  economic  system.  And,  furthermore , as  plan 
after  plan  went  awry,  there  came  to  be  a better  appreciation  of  the  enormous  dif- 
ficulties to  be  overcome  in  achieving  commercial  independence. 

In  the  fifties,  as  in  the  thirties,  commercial  dependence  was  believed  to  be 
responsible  for  the  transfer  of  much  Southern  wealth  to  the  North  in  the  form  of 
profits;  as  in  the  thirties,  it  was  said  that  the  Northern  merchants  and  ship  own- 
ers reaped  large  profits  from  importing  for  the  Southern  states  and  conducting 
their  foreign  and  coastwise  commerce.  The  estimated  total  of  the  sums  subtracted 
from  the  yearly  product  of  Southern  industry  in  the  form  of  importers*  profits, 
interest  upon  advances,  freight  charges,  insurance,  commissions,  port  and  wharf 
charges,  and  the  expenses  of  Southern  merchants  who  went  North  tc  purchase  their 
stocks,  hod  grown  with  the  nation's  commerce  and  shipping,  and,  by  the  processes 
of  Southern  arithmetic,  had  become  enormous  indeed.  Said  William  Gregg:  "It  is 

a hopeless  task  to  undertake  to  even  approximate  to  the  vast  sums  of  wealth  which 
have  been  transferred  from  the  South  to  the  North  by  blowing  the  Northern  cities 
to  import  and  export  for  us."^  Joseph  Segar,  of  Virginia,  cited  the  report  of  the 
8.  DeBow's  Review.  XXIX,  82. 


* 


, 


. 

. 

• r 


, 

, 

' 


« 

1 


, 


( 


, 


90 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  showing  the  imports  and  the  exports  of  the  United  States 
for  1856  to  have  been  $314,000,000  and  $326,000,000  respectively.  ’’Now  the  com- 
mercial profit  of  this  vast  amount  of  business  inures  almost  exclusively  to  the 
North.  The  South  has  scarcely  a say  in  the  matter.  She  not  only  surrenders  near- 
ly all  the  profit  on  the  import  trade,  but  our  productions  — the  basis  of  our  ex- 
ports— are  mostly  shipped  to  Northern  cities,  and  thence  reshipped  in  Northern 

bottoms  to  the  foreign  market,  so  that  she  actually  loses  the  factorage  on  her 

>■* 

own  productions.  Such  a state  of  things  is  an  annual  lose  to  her  of  numerous 

9 

millions  and  her  bitter  reproach."  Another  Virginian  calculated,  in  1853,  that 
Virginia  lost  $9,539  -037  *76  annually  by  "allowing”  New  York  to  carry  her  trade. ^ 
To  such  statements  as  these,  and  there  were  hundreds  of  them,  it  was  not  suf- 
ficient to  reply,  as  Northern  men  frequently  did,  that  what  the  North  got  was  on- 
ly  a fair  commercial  remuneration-  True,  people  in  the  South  considered  the  re- 
muneration too  great  because  the  indirect  course  of  trade,  by  reason  of  the  grey- 
er mileage,  the  extra  transhipments  necessary,  and  the  mediation  of  a greater  num- 
ber of  middlemen,  each  of  whom  must  exact  a profit,  made  foreign  geode  more  cost- 
ly to  the  ultimate  purchasers  than  would  the  direct  trade.  Many,  too,  believed 
they  were  being  exploited  by  Northern  merchants  and  financiers,  made  the  prey  of 
manipulators,  and  made  to  pay  extortionate  prices.  But  the  rather  characteristic 
reply  quoted  above  portrays  inability  of  unwillingness  to  grasp  the  chief  reasons 
for  dissatisfaction  in  the  South  with  the  manner  in  which  Southern  commerce  was 
conducted. 

As  in  on  earlier  period  discussed,  sc  at  this  time  it  was  believed  tha.t  Norn 
them  seaports  owed  their  phenomenal  growth  and  prosperity  very  largely  to  their 
control  of  Southern  foreign  commerce.  It  waa  a logical  conclusion  that,  could 
this  commerce  be  conducted  by  Southern  seaports,  they  would  enjoy  like  prosperity. 
9.  DgBow^s  Review,  XXII,  515.  10.  Ibid-,  XIV,  500- 

11.  Olmsted,  The  Cotton  Kingdom.  II,  301. 


* 


< 


. 


' rc  ! 


. 

, 

, 


c 

, 

, 

< 

• 

• 

, 

. 


( 


. 

< * 


91 

And  in  the  lo50's  the  people  of  every  Southern  seaport  of  any  pretensions  V'hatever 
had  the  natural  and  laudable  ambition  to  make  it  a great  commercial  center.  Will- 
iam S.  Forrest  in  his  Sketches  of  Norfolk  rather  naively  related  that  upon  Septem- 
ber 26,  1850,  the  Honorable  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Accomac,  "spoke  with  startling  elo- 
quence, and  most  convincing  power  of  argument,  of  the  reason  that  Norfolk  is  not 

already  a great  city,  and  of  the  means  by  which  she  may  become  a great  Southern 
12 

emporium."  There  was  much  of  this  type  of  eloquence. 

The  public  had  no  reason  to  be  uninformed  in  regard  to  the  relative  advanta- 
ges and  disadvantages  of  every  Southern  port.  The  jealousy  of  rivals  displayed 
in  some  of  the  cities  is  rather  amusing,  considering  the  inconsequence  of  the  ma- 
jority of  them;  although  it  had  rather  important  influence  upon  the  location  of 
railroads  in  the  South,  and  possibly  some  small  influence  detrimental  to  the  suc- 
cess of  projects  for  direct  trade  with  Europe. 

The  citizens  of  Norfolk  hoped  much  from  her  splendid  harbor  and  strategic  lo- 
cation at  the  entrance  of  the  Chesapeake.  Richmond,  upon  the  James  River,  was  a 
larger  town,  more  centrally  located  with  reference  to  Virginia,  possessed  of  the 
advantage  of  being  the  capital  of  the  state;  and  her  people  were  determined  to 
mase  her  the  commercial  capital  of  Virginia,  if  not  of  a much  larger  territory. 

Th;e  people  of  North  Carolina  regretted  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  Charleston 
and  Norfolk  because  of  the  v/ant  of  a good  port  in  their  own  state;  and  there  was 
discussion  of  the  possibility  of  making  Wilmington  a great  Southern  emporium. 
Charleston  and  Savannah  were  the  only  ports  of  any  consequence  upon  a long  stretch 
of  coast-line,  and  were  rivals  for  the  trade  of  several  states.  In  the  fifties 
Charleston  was  in  many  respects  the  most  progressive  city  in  the  South. With  the 

12.  P.  260.  The  same  thought  recurs  frequently,  for  example:  "There  are  many 

thinking,  practical,  and  intelligent  men,  who  believe  that  Norfolk,  at  some  not 
very  distant  period  in  the  history  of  the  world,  wall  be  a great  city.  Every  per- 
son, who  thinks  upon  the  subject  at  all,  knows  well  enough  that  the  place  is  not 
what  it  ought  long  since  to  have  been.  P.  28l.  Forrest  quoted  Jefferson  and  Madison 
upon  the  future  of  Norfolk.  P.  296,  297. 

13.  Cf.  J.  N.  Cordoza,  Reminiscences  of  Charleston,  1866;  W.  L.  Trenholm,  "’he  Cen- 
tenni nl  Address  before  the  Charleston  Chamber  of  Commerce . 11th  Feb.  1884. 


‘ . 'K  < 


. 


, 


, 


; ; • , 


, 


, 


. 


‘ 


, 


, 

« 

• ( 

< 


c 


1 


t 


' 

. 


92 

exception  of  New  Orleans,  she  had  more  citizens  of  wealth  and  better  banking  faci- 
lities than  any  other  city  south  of  Baltimore.  Many  of  her  merchants  were  natives 
or  of  long  residence,  and  were  imbued  with  a high  degree  of  public  spirit.  Her 
chamber  of  commerce  was  resourceful  and  aggressive.  On  the  other  hand,  Savannah, 
while  she  had  all  the  drawbacks  of  Southern  cities  in  general,  possessed  certain 
advantages  of  location  from  which  much  was  hoped.  She  was  more  advantsgeously  lo- 
cated for  securing  railroad  connection  with  the  West. 

Until  the  vast  possibilities  of  the  railroad  for  changing  the  established 

course  of  trade  were  realized,  the  citizens  of  New  Orleans  never  doubted  that  thei: 

city  was  destined  to  become  the  metropolis  of  America,  situated  as  she  was  at  the 

mouth  of  a river  which  drains  half  a continent,  and  strategically  located  with 

1 4 

reference  to  the  West  Indies,  Mexico,  South  America,  and  the  Pacific.  Not  until 
after  about  1850  did  the  people  of  New  Orleans  awaken  to  a realization  that  the 
greatness  of  the  city  could  not  be  insured  merely  by  permitting  time  and  nature  to 
take  their  courses,  but  that  they  must  resort  to  the  same  methods  less  favored 
cities  employed.  Then  the  city  government  was  reformed;  radiating  railroads  were 
projected,  and  their  construction  was  pushed  vigorously.  One,  the  New  Orleans, 
Jackson,  and  Great  No rthern,  aimed  at  the  Ohio;  the  other,  the  Opelousas  and  West- 
ern, pointed  toward  the  west  and  was  intended  to  be  the  first  span  of  a road  to 
the  Pacific.  Greet  interest  was  taken  in  projects  to  establish  communication  with 
the  Pacific  by  way  of  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec.  The  rivals  of  New  Orleans  were 
not  neighboring  cities  on  the  Gulf,  although  citizens  of  Mobile  regarded  her  as 
one,  but  cities  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  between  which  and  the  Mississippi  valley 
communication  by  railroads  and  inland  waterways  was  being  established. 

Mobile  was  the  only  other  Gulf  port  of  any  consequence;  her  ambitions  far  ex- 
ceeded her  legitimate  expectations.  John  Forsyth  told  of  the  aspirations  and  the 
sad  deficiencies  of  Mobile  in  the  same  breath:  "Mobile  is  but  a chrysalis  of  con- 

14.  Cf.  Geo.  W.  Cable,  History  end  Present  Condition  of  New  Orleans,  Tenth  Census, 
°'XLX,  Pt.  II,  213-95- 


. 


, 


« 


( 


« 


: 


93 

merce.  . ..She  stands  trembling  at  the  portals  of  a grand  destiny  which  she  has  not 
the  courage  to  enter,  and  paralyzed  by  the  coward  fear  that  the  splendid  columns 
and  gilded  domes,  the  sapphire  pavements  and  rubied  windows  of  the  temple  of  com- 
mercial grandeur,  are  not  for  her  enjoyment  and  realization."^  This,  of  a town 
of  about  25,000  inhabitants. 

It  was,  then,  from  chambers  of  commerce,  boards  of  trade,  merchants,  editors, 
and  public  spirited  citizens  and  officials  of  Southern  seaports  that  projects  for 
establishing  direct  trade  received  much,  if  not  most,  of  their  support.  But  the 
achievement  of  commercial  independence  was  represented  not  merely  as  a measure 
which  would  promote  the  prosperity  of  individual  seaports,  but  also  as  a measure 
which  would  greatly  benefit  the  South  as  a whole;  the  interest  in  it,  therefore, 
was  not  confined  to  the  seaports  but  was  general  throughout  the  youth. 

The  general  reasons  why  the  loyal  and  progressive  Southerners  were  very  de- 
sirous of  promoting  the  material  development  of  the  section  have  been  given  in 

16 

connection  with  the  account  of  the  movement  to  bring  the  spindles  to  the  cotton. 

It  was  galling  to  their  pride  that  their  section  should  be  languishing  and  depen- 
dent . They  wanted  a denser  population,  cities,  towns,  railroads,  development  of 
natural  resources,  and  the  social  benefits  which  they  believed  would  follow  mater- 
ial development.  They  wished  to  prove  by  the  actual  accomplishment  that,  contrary 
to  the  contentions  of  its  Northern  and  British  antagonist s,  cities,  commerce,  man- 
ufactures, and  the  "arts  of  living"  could  flourish  in  a slave  society.  And,  more 
important,  they  felt  that  the  security  of  slavery  could  no  longer  be  safely  en- 
trusted to  constitutional  guarantees  and  adroit  political  combinations,  but  that 
these  must  be  supported  by  the  power  of  wealth,  numbers,  and  economic  independent  e 
If,  as  was  possible,  the  Union  should  be  dissolved,  these  things  would  be  essen- 
tial to  national  existence. 

15*  Lecture  on  "The  North  and  the  South,"  DeBow's  Review.  XVII,  377. 

16.  See  chap.  II. 


' 


- 


■ 

, 


' 


. 


' 


t 

- 

* 

- , 

< 

< t 

. 

. 


» 


94 


Mow  direct  trade  and  the  retention  at  home  of  the  "tribute'*  the  South  paid 
New  York  were  expected  to  supply  the  capital  which  would  build  cities,  give  a 
stimulus  to  manufactures,  mining,  and  agriculture,  make  possible  stronger  finan- 
cial institutions,  help  finance  railroads  and  other  internal  improvements,  and, 
by  consequence,  invite  immigration  and  thus  redress  the  political  preponderance 
of  the  non-slaveholding  states,  According  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of  ways 
and  means  of  the  Alabama  legislature:  "As  the  proper  adjustment  of  our  foreign 

and  domestic  trade,  on  the  principle  of  economy  laid  down,  involves  the  value  of 
city,  town,  and  county  property,  agricultural  and  manufacturing  prosperity,  the 

profits  on  bank,  railroad,  and  canal  stocks,  as  well  as  population  and  political 

17 

power  it  becomes  one  of  the  highest  considerations  to  all  classes? 

Furthermore,  there  were  several  evils  in  the  Southern  economic  and  social 
system  for  which  it  was  believed  the  establishment  of  direct  trade  with  Europe 
would  be  a specific  remedy.  One  of  these  was  the  absence  of  a permanent  mercan- 
tile class  whose  interests  were  identified  with  those  of  the  South  at  large  both 
financially  and  politically.  The  merchants  of  most  Southern  towns,  interior  as 
well  as  seaport,  were  largely  Northern  men  or  foreigners  who  .looked  upon  their 

abode  in  the  South  as  temporary.  James  Stirling  said  two-thirds  or  three-fourths 

l3 

of  the  commercial  business  was  carried  on  by  Northern  men  or  foreigners.  Most 
of  the  cotton  buyers  and  commission  merchants  were  non-resident s;  and  the  South 
was  literally  overrun  by  agents  and  collectors  of  Northern  mercantile  houses. 

"The  merchants  of  the  South,  like  the  nobility  of  Ireland,"  wrote  Lieutenant  Mau- 
ry, "are,  for  the  most  part  non-residents . At  the  season  when  the  Southern  sta- 
ples are  coming  to  market,  these  flock  there  from  all  quarters.  When  the  crop  is 
disposed  of,  they  return  whence  they  came,  with  their  gains  in  their  pockets,  and, 
thus,  a continued  drain  is  kept  upon  that  country. . 

1? . DeBowls  Review.  XIV,  441. 

18.  Letters  from  the  Slave,  States,,  320. 

19*  So.  Lit . Mess.,  XI,  588. 


, 


. 

, 


t 


t 


, 

. 

. 


, 


' 


95 

No  city  suffered  more  in  this  respect  than  New. Orleans.  The  wealthy  Creoles 


owned  the  real  estate  and  lived  upon  its  rental.  They  were  extremely  conservative, 
desired  to  keep  down  taxes,  and  opposed  new  enterprises.  The  men  who  directed 
oommerce  were  strangers  who  had  no  permanent  stake  in  the  city,  but  preferred  tem- 
porary gains  to  the  future  growth  of  the  port.  Their  earnings  were  expended  or 

20 

invested  chiefly  in  the  North.  The  busy  season  of  New  Orleans  extended  from 
October  or  November  to  the  following  spring.  During  this  period  thousands  of 
laborers,  attracted  by  high  wages,  flocked  to  the  city  from  the  Northern  states  to 
return  thence  when  the  busy  season  closed.  An  English  observer  estimated  that  of 
the  population  from  November  to  May  fully  a fourth  part  was  migratory. 21 

Practically  the  whole  business  of  Mobile,  Alabama, -commerce,  banking,  the  few 
manufactures,.  was  in  the  hands  of  Northern  men.  Savannah,  Georgia,  had  a large 
Northern  and  foreign  element;  and  Augusta  was  known  as  a Yankee  town — the  Yankee 
element  was  not  transient  in  this  case.  Charleston  suffered  less  from  transients 
and  temporary  residents  than  any  other  Southern  city  or  town.  Virginia  towns  in 
general  had  a more  permanent  and  more  Southern  population  than  those  of  the  cotton 
states.  The  want,  in  so  many  Southern  towns,  of  a permanent  mercantile  class 
thoroughly  identified  with  the  interests  of  the  section  deprived  the  South  of  a 
class  which,  in  every  community,  has  much  to  do  with  the  undertaking  of  new  enter- 
prises. It  was  largely  responsible,  too,  for  the  small  part  cities  played  in 
determining  state  legislative  policies.  Then,  thorough  Southerners  desired  to  be 
rid  of  the  swarms  of  Northern  agents,  temporary  residents,  and  migratory  population 
because  they  were  felt  to  be  unfriendly  to  slavery.  Their  presence,  it  was  felt, 
would  divide  and  distract  Southern  counsels.  Their  influence  upon  native  non- 
slaveholding whites  was  feared. 

Another  feature  of  the  economic  system  of  the  South  which  was  greatly  de- 
plored was  financial  dependence  upon  the  East,  particularly  New  York  City.  This 

20.  DeBow* s Review.  XI,  71  ff,  quoting  a speech  of  James  Robb  in  a Louisiana 
railroad  convention,  1851. 

21.  James  Richardson,  A Few  Months  in  North  America.  66.  Cf.  Robert  Russell, 


11  ' *L 


* 

. 


. 


, 


• r * . 


, • 


• . 


» 

• • 

» 

f 


96 


was  coming  to  be  considered  a great  evil  at  the  time  of  the  early  direct  trade 
conventions,  it  was  a matter  of  greater  concern  in  the  1350's.  The  immense  com- 
merce of  New  York  was  believed  responsible  for  the  centralization  there  of  so 
much  of  the  financial  power  and  operations  of  the  country.  If  direct  trade  could 
be  established  and  commercial  centers  built  up,  the  banking  institutions  of  the 

South  would  be  strengthened , and  thus  enabled  to  meet  the  financial  requirements 
22 

of  the  section. 

The  Southern  people  were  largely  dependent  upon  New  York  City  for  the  finan- 
cing of  the  marketing  of  their  crops.  Every  fall  when  Southern  staples  began  to 
move,  planters  and  shippers  made  great  demands  for  cash  and  credit.  Southern 
banks  made  such  loans  as  their  facilities  would  permit,  and  in  the  case  of  New  Or- 
leans and  Charleston  they  were  by  no  means  small;  but  the  chief  burden  fell  upon 
New  York . 

To  make  this  clear  it  is  necessary  to  review  briefly  the  manner  in  which 
Southern  crops,  particularly  cotton,  were  marketed.  Virginia  products  (tobacco 
and  grain  principally)  consumed  outside  the  state  were  sold  mostly  in  New  York, 
even  when  destined  to  be  exported  to  Europe.  Of  direct  exports,  a large  portion 
was  bought  and  shipped  by  New  York  men.2j  Part  of  the  cotton  was  sold  in  the  ports 
to  speculators  and  others  many  of  whom  were  New  Yorkers.  The  remainder,  and  per- 
haps tne  larger  part,  was  sold  in  the  North  or  in  England  through  factors  and  com- 
mission merchants  representing  New  York  or  Liverpool  houses.  The  planters  or  mer- 
chants received  advances  upon  their  cotton,  or  payment  for,  chiefly  in  the  form  of 

21. (cont.)  No.rth  America,,  253  * During  the  last  decade  before  the  War,  how- 
ever, conditions  in  Mew  Orleans  visibly  improved. 

22.  DeBow^s  Review,  XIV,  441;  remarks  of  Mr.  Wheeler  in  the  Virginia  House  of 

Delegates,  Richmond  Enquirer.  Dec.  10,  1852;  D.  M.  Barringer,  of  N.C.,  in  the  Old 
Point  direct  trade  convention,  ibid..,  Aug.  3;  H.  C.  Cabell,  of  Virginia.  Hunt's 
Merchant*'  Mag.,  XLII,  32 3-  — 

23.  "Letter  of  a Southern  man  to  Governor  Wise  of  Virginia,"  Richmond  Enaui- 
rer,  Jan.  9,  1856;  editorial,  ibid. . Dec.  17,  1852. 


->*S 


97 


sixty  day  sterling  bills  or  four  months  New  York  drafts.  These  bills  and  drafts 
were  discounted  by  Southern  banks  and  forwarded  to  New  York,  where  they  went  to 
pay  the  debts  of  Southern  merchants  and  others  or  to  secure  cash  with  which  to 
purchase  the  other  bills  which  came  flooding  in  as  the  staples  went  forward.  Ster- 
ling bills  were  bought  in  New  York,  of  course,  because  there  came  the  larger  pro- 
portion of  the  imports,  and  there  normally  was  the  demand  for  bills.  Exchange 
was  frequently  in  favor  of  the  South  (especially  was  this  true  in  the  case  of  New 

Orleans),  and  at  such  times  great  suras  of  specie  flowed  South  to  find  their  way 

24 

back  to  the  North  during  the  dull  seasons  of  the  year. 

It  is  evident  that  the  moving  of  the  cotton  crop  and,  in  a large  measure,  the 
price  the  planter  received,  depended  upon  the  ability  and  willingness  of  New  York 
to  buy  New  York  drafts  and  sterling  bills.  This  wa3  strikingly  proven  at  the 
time  of  the  financial  crisis  of  1857  * The  effect  of  the  crash  can  best  be  stud- 
ied at  New  Orleans,  the  greatest  cotton  exporting  port  in  America*  The  crop  of 
1857  was  short,  and  the  price  was  expected  to  be  high.  Factors,  finding  money 
easy,  put  out  their  acceptances  with  a liberal  hand,  expecting  the  crop  coning  in 
to  meet  all  engagements.  Cotton  went  on  the  market  at  l6£  cents  with  sterling 
selling  at  109'i  to  lO^*  On  September  25  word  came  from  New  York  that  exchange 
was  almost  unsaleable.  Money  became  tighter  and  tighter;  sterling  fell  to  92^-- 
97;  and  presently  banks  refused  to  take  it  at  any  price-  Cotton  buyers  withdrew 
from  the  market.  A large  of  the  cotton  crop  sold  for  several  cents  less  than  the 
promised  price.“' 

The  crash  brought  the  evils  of  financial  dependence  home  to  the  South  as 

24. Kettell,  Southern  Wealth  and  Northern  Profit 9,  ch.  VII;  Hunt's  Merchants' 
Mag..,  XXIX,  60;  XLII,  313;  report  of  a committee  of  the  Cotton  Planters'  Conven- 
tion, Macon,  1853,  in  DeBow's  Review.  XXV,  713  f;  A-  H.  Stone,  "The  Cotton  Fac- 
torage System  of  the  Southern  States,”  Amer.  Hi st . Rev . , XX,  557-64. 

25.  New  Orleans  Daily  Picayune.  June  1,  1858;  Hunt's  Merchants'  Mag..,  XLII,  35, 
from  article,  "Banking  at  the  South  with  Reference  to  New  York  City,  " by  H.  C. 
Cabell,  of  Virginia. 


s . ^ 


98 

they  had  never  been  brought  before.  Southern  journals  and  writers  pointed  out 
that  the  South  had  not  been  responsible  for  the  panic.  There  had  been  no  specu- 
lation in  the  South,  they  9aid.  True,  she  had  embarked  largely  upon  railroad 
building,  but  because  of  the  scarcity  of  capital  the  building  had  been  sane,  and 
economically  done.  The  South  was  in  a position  to  enter  upon  a flood-tide  of 
prosperity,  "and  yet  - and  yet-  almost  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  with  the  sud- 
denness of  an  earthquake,  and  unexpectedly  as  a stroke  of  lightning  from  a cloud- 
less sky,  cotton  was  struck  down  and  became  almost  unsaleable  in  the  Southern  mar- 
ket."2^ The  South  lost  millions  of  dollars—  $35,000,000,  said  Senator  J.  H.  Ham- 
mond in  his  "Mud  Sill"  speech  — upon  the  crop  of  the  year  1857-1858.*^ 

The  New  Orleans  Picayune  pointed  out  the  anomaly  of  the  greatest  exporting 

port  in  America  being  "stranded  because  of  a money  panic  in  Wall  Street"  — cdtton 

28 

selling  at  10  cents  a pound  while  it  was  18  or  19  in  London.'"'  The  moral  was 
drawn  that,  had  the  South  direct  trade,  there  would  have  been  a demand  at  home  for 
sterling  bills,  and  cotton  could  have  gone  forward  without  waiting  for  the  recov- 
ery of  New  York.  The  Picayune  dare  hope  that  the  disturbance  caused  by  the  panic 
might  result  in  direct  trade  for  the  South:  "The  power  on  which  we  have  been  de- 

pendent so  long  has  at  length  given  way,  and  almost  without  knowing  it,  we  have 
come  or  are  about  to  come,  actually  to  realize  in  practice  what  has  hitherto  been 
considered  by  many  an  idle  dream.  And  should  this  step  ....  result  in  our  perma- 
nent emancipation  from  a system  whoso  advantages  are  far  outnumbered  by  its  disad- 
vantages — a system  which  wrings  from  us  annually,  without  any  return  except  the 
loss  of  influence  and  power,  millions  of  hard  earned  dollars  — we  should  think  the 
financial  crisis  with  all  its  manifold  evils  cheap  to  ua.1'^ 

26.  Hunt  ' s Merchants*  Magazine.  XLII , 315* 

27*  Cong . globe.  35  Cong.,  1 Sees.,  961. 

28.  Quoted  in  DeBow's  Review.  XXIII,  656  f. 

29.  This  is  a very  moderate  statement.  For  a less  temperate  one  see  DeBow's 
Review. XXIII.  657-9,  quoting  the  Vicksburg  True  Southron. 


99 


The  immense  loss  occasioned  the  South  by  the  crash  of  September,  1057 , was 
but  o striking  example  of  the  evils  of  the  centralization  of  commerce  and  finance 
in  New  York.  The  cotton  states,  as  did  the  west  for  that  matter,  experienced  to 
a less  degree  the  evils  of  centralization  every  fall  when  the  crops  were  moved. 
During  the  idle  months  funds  found  their  way  to  New  York,  there  to  be  used  in  bus- 
iness or  speculation.  When  the  crops  of  the  South  and  West  began  to  move,  there 
was  a tightness  in  the  money  market,  which  operated  to  depress  prices. And  this 
did  not  signify,  as  some  planters  asserted,  that  Mew  York  financial  interests  were 
interested  in  forcing  down  the  price  of  cotton.^  It  was  far  preferable  to  be  de- 
pendent upon  the  money  power  of  New  York  than  upon  the  money  power  of  London;  for 
normally  New  York  wss  interested  in  keeping  the  prices  up.  Since  the  Southern 
staple  constituted  the  chief  export  of  the  country,  and  there  was  a quite  steady 
demand  for  it  in  the  world’s  markets,  it  became  the  basis  for  securing  credit  in 
Europe.  The  cotton  crop  was  at  once  an  index  to  Northern  manufacturers  and  mer- 
chants of  the  South’s  ability  to  buy  in  the  home  markets  and  of  the  nation's  abil- 
ity to  purchase  abroad.  The  solicitude  with  'which  the  business  interests  of  New 
York,  especially  in  time  of  depression,  looked  forward  to  the  moving  of  cotton  and 
speculated  upon  the  crop  and  the  price  it  would  bring,  abundantly  testifies  to  the 
role  cotton  played  in  keeping  the  wheels  of  credit  in  motion.  At  the  time  of  the 
crisis  of  1857,  New  York  financial  circles  considered  it  essential  to  revival  that 
cotton  continue  to  move,  whatever  the  price,  end  hoped  the  planters  would  be  will- 
ing to  let  it  go  forward  at  the  low  prices  shippers  would  be  compelled  to  offer. 

30.  Kettell,  Southern  We  alt  h and  Northern  Profits . 93,  94. 

31.  Mr.  Wheeler  of  Portsmouth  said  in  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  Dec.  2, 
1852:  "...the  price,  the  worth,  the  market  value  of  all  we  and  the  people  we  re- 
present own  of  every  kind  of  property,  is  dependent  upon  the  speculative  pleasure 
of  the  Merchants,  the  Bankers,  and  Brokers  of  New  York*  And  why?  Because  Wall 
Street  can  depress  the  money  market  when  it  pleases. " Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  7, 
1852.  See  also  A.  Dudley  Mann,  D_cBow * s_  Review . XXIV,  373* 

32.  T Tunt ' s Me rc h an t s ' Mag. . XXXVII,  583  * Some  of  the  cotton  had  not  been  ad- 
vanced upon  and  the  planters  were  able  to  hold  it;  but  much  of  the  cotton  did  go 
forward.  The  importance  of  its  movement  to  Northern  business  was  not  overlooked 
in  the  South.  "What  saved  you!"  said  Senator  Hammond,  "Fortunately  for  you  it  was 


100 


The  cotton  planters  were  not  the  only  ones  who  suffered  fron  the  financial 
dependence  of  the  South  upon  the  North.  All  who  sought  to  embark  in  business,  to 
start  manufactures,  to  develop  the  mineral  resources*  of  the  country,  found  them- 
selves handicapped  by  their  inability  to  secure  proper  financial  support  at  home. 
Most  cf  the  railroad  bonds,  for  example,  had  to  be  sold  either  in  New,  York  or  oth- 
er Northern  cities  or  abroad.  No  wonder  the  people  of  the  Southern  states,  at  a 
time  when  there  was  almost  a mania  for  railroad  building,  when  they  were  becoming 
aware  of  the  existence  of  considerable  mineral  resources  and  the  possession  of 
great  advantages  for  certain  lines  of  manufactures,  should  chafe  at,  and  try  to  be 
free  from  the  necessity  of  waiting  for  the  favor  of  distant  money  markets  before 
entering  upon  a career  of  expansion.  Said  a correspondent  of  the  Charleston  Cour- 
ier . 1854 : "At  present  our  principal  sources  for  obtaining  funds  are  through  the 
capitalists  of  the  North  end  Europe.  So  long  as  we  are  thus  dependent,  so  long 
may  we  expect  to  be  used  for  their  benefit,  and  be  mode  subservient  to  their  in- 
terests. when  they  cannot  find  better  investment  they  will  advance  to  us  freely, 
and  leave  us  when  they  can  find  others  more  pro  fit  able  .”83 

A good  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  attempts  to  inaugurate  new  enter- 
prises in  the  South  were  handicapped  by  the  financial  deficiencies  of  the  section 
is  found  in  the  efforts  which  were  made  to  establish  direct  trade  with  Europe;  for 
commercial  vassalage  was  effect  as  well  as  cause  of  financial  vassalage.  An  ela- 
boration of  this  statement  again  brings  into  view  the  pernicious  long  credits  sys- 
tem, and  raises  the  question  whether  after  all,  had  it  not  been  for  this  system, 
the  credit  facilities  of  the  South  might  not  have  been  sufficient  to  perm.it  the 
launching  of  many  more  new  enterprises  than  were  actually  launched.  Just  as  in 

32.  (Con't’d)  the  commencement  of  the  cotton  season,  end  we  have  poured  in 
upon  you  one  million  six  hundred  thousand  bales  of  cotton  just  at  the  crises  to 
save  you  from  sinking.  That  cotton,  but  for  the  bursting  of  your  speculative 
bubble  in  the  North ... .would  have  brought  us  *100,000,000.  We  have  scld  it  for 
*65,000,000,  and  saved  you."  Cong.  C-lobe , 35  Cong.,  1 Pess.,  96I. 


33. April  7,  1854. 


- 


< 


« 


: 


, 


< 


. 


< 


t 


. 


, 

, 


.... 


• < ' 

<* 


101 


the  thirties  retail  merchants  in  the  South  bought  of  Northern  Jobbers  on  long 
credit  — often  twelve  months.  To  compete  with  the  Northern  jobbers,  Southern  im- 
porters end  jobbers  would  also  have  to  extend  the  long  credits.  But  while  the 
Northern  jobbers  could  procure  funds  upon  their  long  time  paper,  the  Southern  im- 


porters found  it  difficult  or  impossible  to  discount  long  time  paper  in  Southern 


banks. 


The  New  Orleans  Commie rcl al  Bulletin  enumerated  the  greater  facilities  of  the 
merchants  of  Northern  cities  for  the  extension  of  long  credits  as  one  of  the  rea- 
sons why  New  Orleans  had  lost  much  trade  in  the  South  and  West:  "The  twelve 

months  credit  system  did  the  business,  and  attracted  an  immense  amount  of  Western 

34 

and  Southern  trade  to  those  cities,  which  would  have  otherwise  gought  this  port. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Mobile  Tribune  the  South  was  bound  to  the  North  by  long  ere- 
dits:  destroy  that  system  and  there  might  be  some  chance  for  direct  trade.”"'  In 
fact,  just  asjin  the  period  of  the  early  direct  trade  conventions,  the  long  credit 
system  was  frequently  denounced  and  deplored,  end  the  people  were  frequently  urged 
to  free  themselves  from  it.  Yet,  it  must  be  said,  the  people  of  the  Southern 
states  took  long  credits  too  much  as  a matter  cf  course,  and  did  not  adequately 
realize  their  viciousness.  There  was  almost  no  other  factor  that  operated  so  ef- 
fectively to  retard  the  accumulation  of  capital  in  the  South.  The  Southern  people 
paid  for  these  long  advances  and  paid  dearly.  They  paid  in  interest  fcpon  advan- 
ces. They  paid  in  increased  prices  of  articles  consumed;  for  because  of  the  pre- 
carious nature  of  much  of  the  Southern  trade,  risks  were  great,  and  Northern  mer- 
chants insured  themselves  well  against  these  risks.  They  paid,  often,  in  the  sac- 
rifice in  the  prices  of  their  staple®  incurred  because  of  forced  sales  necessary 
to  procure  money  to  meet  their  obligations  at  maturity.  J.  L.  Crocheren,  cf  Ala- 

34.  Hunt* a Merchants'  Mag,. , XXXIII,  2o3  . 

3-2*  L^iL* ♦ XXXTTT , 264.  The  dissatisfaction  with  the  long  credits  system 
was  not  entirely  confined  tb  the  South.  Some  New  York  men  felt  that  the  Southern 
trade  was  hardly  worth  the  risks  involved.  Ibid ..  XXXTV,  522,  article,  "Some 
Suggestions  on  Southern  "rade." 


102 

bwna,  seid  the  South  put  herself  at  the  mercy  of  speculators  by  forcing  one-third 
of  her  cotton  into  the  market  in  two  months  in  order  to  pay  advonces  received  dur- 
ing twelve.-^ 

The  financinl  dependence  o?  the  Southern  states  was  not  credited  only  to  the 
absence  of  foreign  commerce,  cities,  accumulated  capital,  varied  industries.  There 
was  considerable  dissatisfaction  with  the  banking  system-  It  was  thought  by  some 
that  the  banking  laws  were  too  conservative  in  several  of  the  states.  The  policiei 
of  the  banks  were  criticized  on  the  score  that  they  contributed  to  the  centraliza- 
tion  at  New  York.--?  Representatives  of  the  mercantile  interests  complained  that 
banks  v/ere  partial  to  the  agricultural  interests.  It  would  take  us  too  far  from 
the  subject  of  this  chapter  to  enter  into  a discusssion  of  the  bank  lawa  and  bank- 
ing operations  in  the  several  states.  In  three  states,  Louisiana,  South  Carolina, 
and  Georgia,  it  would  seem  that  banking  facilities  were  ebout  as  adequate  as  the 

demands  of  business  would  justify;  there, too, the  bankers  pursued  enlightened  poli- 

. 38 

cies.  There  was  undoubtedly  great  improvement  in  banking  conditions  during  the 
fifties. 

There  were  difficulties  to  be  overcome  before  direct  importations  could  be 
established  other  than  deficiency  of  capital  and  credit,  the  long  credits  system, 
or  the  absence  of  a thoroughly  Southern  mercantile  claes.  One  lay  in  the  compara- 
tively small  amounts  of  foreign  goods  consumed  in  the  South.  There  is  no  way  of 
calculating  accurately  the  value  of  the  foreign  imports  consumed  in  territory  na- 
turally tributary  to  Southern  seaports;  but  the  probabilities  are  that  it  did  not 
so  greatly  exceed  the  direct  importations  as  Southerners  generally  supposed.  Some 

36.  DeBow's  Review.  XXV,  39» 

37*  H.  C.  Cabell,  "Banking  in  the  South  with  Reference  to  New  York  City," 

Hunt  * s Merchants  ^ Magazine,  XLII , 311-323?  letters  of  "A  Southern  Man"  to  Gov.  Wise 
of  Virginia,  Richmond  Sr.aui rer.  Jan.  9,  11,  Feb.  11,  1.856;  William  Gregg,  DeBow*  s 
Review,  XXIX,  495;  Kettell,  Southern  Wealth  and  Northern  Profits,  ch.  VII. 

38.  J.  N.  Cordoza,  Bernini  scences  of  Charleston.  44 ff;  W,  L.  Trenholm,  The  Cer- 
tenni  si  Address  before  the  Charleston  Ch  ember  of  Commerce.  3 Iff. 


- 


103 


Southern  writers  made  the  palpably  untenable  assumption  that  the  Southern  popula- 
tion consumed  foreign  goods  equal  in  value  to  their  exports  to  foreign  countries, 
that  i 9 , about  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  nation’s  exports,  or  imports. 
More  reasonable  was  the  assumption  that  the  per  c api t n consumption  of  imported 
goods  in  the  South  was  equal  to  that  of  the  North. ^ But  even  that  would  seem  to 
hsve  been  too  liberal  an  estimate.  A much  higher  percentage  of  the  Northern  popu- 
lation was  urban,  end  the  per  capita  consumption  of  articles  of  commerce  by  an  ur- 
brn  population  is  greater  than  the  per  c api t. a consumption  by  a rural  population. 
Southern  writers  made  much  of  the  number  of  rich  families  in  the  South  who  bouerht 
articles  of  luxury  imported  from  abroad;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  number  of  fam- 
ilies who  lived  in  luxury  was  exaggerated . That  the  slaves  consumed  comparatively 
small  quantities  of  foreign  goods  requires  no  demonstration.  Their  clothing  and 
rough  shoes  were  manufactured  either  in  the  North  or  at  home.  Their  chief  articles 
of  food  (corn  and  bacon)  were  produced  at  home  or  in  the  West.  The  large  poor 
white  element  in  the  population  consumed  few  articles  of  commerce,  either  domestic 
or  foreign.  The  same  i3  true  of  the  rather  large  mountaineer  element,  because,  if 
for  no  other  reason,  they  lived  beyond  the  routes  of  trade.  Olmsted,  had  these 
classes  in  mind  when  he  wrote:  "I  have  never  seen  reason  to  believe  that  with  ab- 
solute free  trade  the  cotton  states  would  take  a tenth  part  of  the  value  of  present 
importations."^  One  of  the  fairest  of  the  many  English  travellers  wrote:  "But  the 

truth  is,  there  are  few  imports  required  for  every  Southern  town  tells  the  same 
42 

tale." 

That  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  Southern  exports  to  foreign  countries  which 
was  not  expended  for  foreign  imports  was  expended  for  the  products  of  the  North 

39.  For  example,  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  The  Union.  Past  and  Present.  How  It  Works 
and  How  t_o_  Save  It . Cf.  DeBow’s  Review.  XVIII,  294  ff.  ~ 

40.  Richmond  E_nquirer,  April  23,  18  5 2,  letter  signed  "Self  Dependence." 

41.  Cotton  Kingdom.  I,  27. 

42.  Robert  Russell,  North  America.  290. 


104 


and  West.  The  sales  from  the  South  into  other  sections  of  the  Union  were  suffic- 
ient to  pay  for  only  a fraction  of  the  commodities  purchased  there  for  Southern 
consumption.  The  value  of  the  cotton  exported  was  greater  by  far  than  the  value 
of  all  other  Southern  exports  combined;  yet  in  a normal  year  less  than  one  fourth 
of  the  cotton  went  to  the  North. The  exports  to  the  North  end  West  of  sugar  and 
molasses,  tobacco,  rice,  grain  and  flour,  timber,  turpentine,  end  naval  stores 
were  considerably  larger  in  proportion  to  the  exports  of  the  same  commodities  to 
foreign  markets;  but  hardly  large  enough  in  the  aggregate  to  pay  for  the  imports 
from  those  sections.  J.  H.  Hammond  estimated  that  in  1857  the  South  sold  products 
abroad  to  the  value  of  $185,000,000,  end  to  the  North  and  West  to  the  value  of 
$35,000,000.  The  latter  sun  is  undoubtedly  too  small;  but  a liberal  estimate 
could  not  place  the  value  of  the  exports  to  the  North  and  West  e.t  more  than  50  per 
cent,  of  the  value  of  the  exports  to  foreign  countries.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
was  almost  universal  testimony  that  Southern  purchases  of  Northern  and  Western 
commodities  greatly  exceeded  in  value  the  direct,  and  indirect  imports  from  abroad. 
Most  of  the  big  items  of  Southern  consumption  were  furnished  almost  entirely  by 
the  North  or  West.  Practically  all  of  the  boots  and  shoes  ceme  from  Massachusetts 
coarse  cottons  came  from  New  England;  the  agricultural  implements  not  manufactured 
at  hone  cane  from  the  North  and  West;  as  did  harness  and  saddle®,  carriages  and 
coaches,  wagons,  locomotives,  and  railroad  cars,  engines,  furniture,  and  numerous 

43.  Donnell,  History  of  Cotton,  passim.  In  the  year  1854,  for  example, 
737,000  bales  of  cotton  were  shipped  North  as  against  2,528,000  exported  to  Europe 

44.  According  to  the  estimate  of  the  New  Orleans  Prices  Current,  in  the  year 
1858-59  four-fifths  of  the  sugar  and  three-fourths  of  the  molasses  exported  coast- 
wise from  New  Orleans  went  to  Baltimore  and  points  north.  DteBow's  Review.  XXVII, 
4?7*  Sugar  and  molasses  were  also  sent  up  the  Mississippi  in  large  quantities. 

The  exports  of  these  commodities  to  foreign  countries  were  not  large.  Of  the  to- 
bacco exported  from  New  Orleans  about  three-fourths  went  to  foreign  countries. 
DeBow's  Review.  X,  448  . No  other  Southern  products  were  exported  from  New  Orleans 
in  large  quantities. 

45*  Cong.  Globe . 35  Cong.,  1 Sese.,  9&1.  The  value  of  the  cotton  i&one  ship- 
ped North  in  1857-58  was  about  $32,000,000.  Hanmond,  Cotton  Industry,  table  op- 
posite p.  358.  Because  of  the  panic  of  1857  the  consumption  of  cotton  was  less 
than  normal. 


105 


other  articlee.  Great  quantities  of  bacon,  pork,  lard,  and  corn  were  shipped  fron 
the  Northwest  down  the  Mississippi  to  be  consumed  in  the  cotton  states.  The  cot- 
ton states  also  bought  large  numbers  of  mules,  horses,  and  cattle  in  Kentucky  and 
Missouri,  states  which  in  the  fifties  received  practically  none  of  their  imports, 
Northern  or  foreign,  by  way  of  Southern  ports. In  1839  a committee  of  the  Char- 
leston Direct  Trade  Convention  had  found  that  one-third  of  the  goods  consumed  in 
the  South  were  of  Northern  production; fifteen  or  twenty  years  later  no  one  es- 
timated the  value  of  the  foreign  goods  at  more  than  one-half  that  of  the  goods  of 
Northern  and  Western  production.  Daniel  Lord,  a Northern  writer,  said  the  South 

imported  from  the  North  ten  dollars  in  domestic  productions  for  every  one  import- 

4-8 

ed  directly  or  indirectly  from  Europe. 

The  ability  of  the  Southern  people  to  purchase  their  proportionate  3hare  of 
the  nation’s  imports  was  further  diminished,  of  course,  by  the  payment  of  those 
freights,  profits,  interests,  commissions,  chargee,  and  expenses  which  went  to 
Northern  men,  and  which  the  advocates  of  a direct  course  of  trade  were  so  anxious 
to  save.  Thus  the  very  commercial  dependence  under  which  the  South  chafed  was  one 
of  the  causes  for  the  want  of  demand  which  made  the  establishment  of  a more  ration 
al  system  difficult.  There  was  logic  in  the  contention  of  the  advocates  of  direct 
trade  that,  could  it  once  be  inaugurated,  the  saving  effected  would  increase  the 
South’s  ability  to  buy,  end  the  increased  demand  would  in  turn  help  to  firmly  es- 
tablish the  system. 

The  meagre  demand  for  imported  goods  rendered  it  necessary  for  Southern  im- 

46.  St.  Louis  was  the  distributing  center  for  Missouri  and  parts  of  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee.  Cincinnati  and  Louisville  were  distributing  centers  for  Kentucky 
and  parte  0?  Tennessee.  In  the  fifties  these  cities  received  practically  all  0? 
their  foreign  and  Northern  goods  from  the  East  by  interior  routes.  Western  Vir- 
ginia traded  with  Cincinnati  and  Baltimore.  Baltimore  was  rarely  classified  as  a 
Southern  city  by  men  from  farther  south. 

47.  DeBow’s  Review.  IV,  ^95. 

48.  Daniel  Lord,  The  Effect  of  Secession  upon  the  North  and  the  South  (namrh-1 
let,  i860)  p.  15. 


< 


, 


, 


. 


. 


« , 


. 

. 

. 

. 

, 


106 


porters  to  keep  assorted  stocks  and  for  long  periods-  In  the  North,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  demand  was  large  enough  to  permit  importers  to  specialize,  and  sure  e- 
nough  to  enable  them  to  replenish  their  stocks  at  frequent  intervals.  The  com- 
merce of  a port  like  New  York  was  so  great  that  it  offered  a certain  market  for 
any  cargo  and  certain  freights  for  any  part  of  the  world. ^ Frequently  cargoes 
were  sold  at  auction  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  sometimes  at  ruinous  prices, 
against  which  the  importers  of  smaller  cities  could  not  compete.  But  whatever  the 
demand  for  imported  goods  in  the  South,  the  denand  for  Northern  goods  was  much 
greater.  A large  number  of  vessels  was  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade.  The  same 
vessels  which  carried  Northern  goods  to  the  South  also  carried  the  indirect  im- 
ports. Often  Southern  merchants  went  to  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  or  New  York  to 
lay  in  their  stocks  of  Northern  goods,  and  while  there  could  buy  merchandise  of 
foreign  origin  ju9t  as  well.''0  "Every  Southern  merchant  that  comes  to  Charleston 
has  a through  ticket  for  New  York  in  his  pocket,"  wrote  William  Gregg  ,$l 

The  question  may  occur,  Why  did  not  Southern  seaports  thrive  as  distributing 
centers  for  the  coastwise  commerce?  The  explanation  lies  in  part  in  the  fact  just, 
alluded  to:  Many  interior  merchants  purchased  of  Northern  rather  than  Southern 

jobbers.  Gregg  attributed  this  to  a preference  of  the  people  for  goods  from  New 
York  and  to  the  hostility  of  banks  to  the  mercantile  interests  — • shown  by  their 
refusal  to  extend  the  support  necessary  to  enable  the  Southern  jobbers  to  extend 
the  long  credits  which  customers  demanded.  Charleston  jobbers  could  sell  cheaper 
than  New  York  jobbers,  he  said,  and  there  was  no  adequate  .reason  why  Charleston 
should  not  beooiae  a distributing  center  even  without  direct  trade. ^ Whether  the 
banks  did  not  support  the  mercantile  interests  because  they  would  not  or  because 

49»  Cf.  Richmond  Whig,  Mar.  11,  1851,  editorial. 

50.  DeJBow*  9 Review.  XXIX,  500,555  - 51-  Ibid..  XXIX,  ??6. 

52 . Ibid . , loc.  cit . 


/ 


. 


. 


. 


. 


, 


: 

. 

' 


• 

- 

. 

t t * 

, ■ 

c 

' 


, 


< 


j 


107 

they  could  not,  it  is  evident  that  the  Southern  jobber  and  the  importer  suffered 
alike  in  this  respect.  Another  writer  said  the  country  merchant  bought  from  the 
Northern  jobber  because  he  knew  that  the  Southern  jobber  bought  his  stocks  in  New 
York,  and  he  did  not  wish  to  pay  two  sets  of  jobbers'  profits.^  But  there  was  a 
deeper  reason  why  the  seaports  did  not  grow  and  prosper  as  distributing  centers: 
The  quantity  of  goods  to  be  distributed  was  too  small.  The  commerce  of  the  South- 
ern states  was  practically  limited  to  transporting  a few  staples  from  the  interior 
to  the  coast  and  exporting  them,  and  to  receiving  foreign  .-and  Northern  goods  at 
the  seaports  and  transporting  them  into  the  interior:  there  was  little  internal 

commerce.  There  was  no  home  market  for  Southern  products.  When  the  first  rail- 
roads were  put  in  operation,  there  was  general  disappointment  at  the  lightness  of 
the  traffic  upon  them.  There  was  little  to  carry  but  cotton,  which  i9  net  a but - 
Kj  article.  It  is  noteworthy  that  before  the  Civil  War  there  was  hardly  an  inter- 
ior town  in  the  South  worthy  of  mention  as  a distributing  center.  In  general 
Southerners  attached  too  much  importance  to  exporting  and  importing  as  factors  in 
the  growth  of  cities.  They  overestimated  the  part  foreign  commerce  was  playing 
in  the  progress  of  Northern  cities,  not  excepting  Mew  York,  and  underestimated  the 
rolas  of  domestio  commerce  and  manufactures,  including  shipbuilding.-^  Today,  of 
the  11  cities  in  the  South  having  over  100,000  inhabitants  each,  only  3 are  sea- 
ports, and  the  total  population  of  these  3 is  but  35  per  cent  of  the  total  popula- 
laiion  of  the  entire  number. 

Mercantile  business  in  the  South  labored  under  serious  disadvantages,  also 

53*  DeBow' s Review.  XII,  300. 

54.  There  were  exceptions.  See,  for  example,  a speech  of  James  Robb,  of  New 
Orleans,  in  a railroad  convention,  1851  * "No  city  ever  grew  great  by  commerce 
alone.  Go  back  as  far  as  they  might,  select  the  most  favorably  located  cities  in 
the  world,  and  they  would  find  their  prosperity  was  transient,  evanescent,  com- 
pared with  that  of  towns  situated  in  the  interior,  where  industry  and  labor  were 
cultivated  and  flourished...."  DeBow* a Review.  XI,  ?8.  See  also  Hunt's  Merchants' 
MScL*  * XXXI V,  137,  quoting  the  New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin;  DeBow*  s Review. 

XXIX,  630,  William  Gregg. 


108 

from  the  great  variations,  from  year  to  year,  in  the  ability  of  the  planters  to 
buy,  resulting  in  turn  from  the  wide  fluctuations  in  the  cotton  crop  and  cotton 
prices. In  the  seaports  it  was  rendered  precarious  by  the  frequent  visitations 
of  yellow  fever. The  unhealthiness  of  the  ports  was  partly  responsible  for  ab- 
senteeism and  the  general  stagnation  of  business  during  the  summer  months,  when 
many  merchants  went  North  or  to  the  interior.  Another  reason  for  cessation  of 
business  activity  in  the  summer  was  the  fact  that  the  cotton  went  to  market  in 
the  fall  and  winter.  This  idleness  during  a large  part  of  the  year,  together  with 
the  lack  of  variety  and  stability  in  the  export  trade,  goes  far  to  explain  why  the 
South  did  not  support  a larger  merchant  marine.  During  the  cotton  season  ships 

from  all  quarters  were  impressed  into  service,  and  at  its  close  returned  to  tther 

57 

employment . 

The  bars  in  Southern  harbors  with  the  notable  exception  of  Norfolk  were  shal- 
low, and  the  fast  clipper  ships,  which  carried  so  much  of  the  world's  commerce, 
could  not  enter.  Large  vessels  anchored  some  thirty  miles  below  Mobile,  and  were 
loaded  and  unloaded  by  means  of  lighters.  A special  type  of  vessel  was  construct 
8d  to  carry  cotton  from  New  Orleans. ^ ' New  Orleans  was  most  persistent  in  appeal- 
ing to  Congress  for  appropriations  for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Mississip- 
pi; but  the  sums  granted  were  not  a tithe  of  the  amount  necessary.  Elsewhere  in 
the  South , the  constitutional  scruples  of  congressmen  prevented  them  from  demand- 
ing the  inclusion  in  rivers  and  harbors  bills  of  items  for  the  improvement  of 

55 • New  Orleans  Daily  Picayune.  Jan.  14,  1858. 

56.  Norfolk  was  scourged  by  yellow  fever  in  1853  . Two  out  of  three  of  the 
whites  and  one  out  of  tW6  of  the  whole  population  died.  H.W.  Burton,  The  His- 
tory  of  Norfolk  (1877),  p.  23*  Enterprise  in  Norfolk  received  a blow  from  which 
it  took  several  years  to  recover.  Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Merchants  .and  Mech- 
anics Exchange  of  Norfolk.  Virginia.  Jan . , i860*.  * 

The  same  year  the  plague  raged  in  other  Southern  towns.  In  New  Orleans  it 
was  long  reraembered  as  the  year  of  the  great  plague.  There  8215  people  died  be- 
tween May  21  and  October  31  • A vivid  description  is  in  DeBow's  Review,  XV,  595ff . 

57*  Joseph  P.  Kennedy,  The  Border  States.  Their  Power  and  Duty,  etc  .(i860)  . 

P«  25.  ” '270. 

58.  01m3ted , Cotton  Kingdom . I . 283 : Peter  J.  Hamilton. Mobile  under  Five  Flags. 

59  • DeBow,  Industrial  Resource  3.  Ill,  15.  ~ 


109 


Southern  harbors.  The  bill  of  1352  appropriated  $50,000  for  the  improvement  of 
Charleston  harbor.  The  appropriation  was  srcepted  but  proved  entirely  inadequate 
President  Pierce  vetoed  the  first  general  rivers  and  harbors  bill  presented  to 
him,  1854,  and  no  others  were  passed  before  the  War,  largely  because  of  the  con- 
stitutional objections  raised  by  Southern  Democrats.  In  1854  a convention  at  Wil- 
mington, North  Carolina,  said  to  be  the  largest  convention  which  had  been  assem- 
bled in  the  3tate,  memorialized  Congress  in  favor  of  an  appropriation  for  improv- 
ing the  bar  at  Wilmington.  The  appropriation  was  secured  by  the  North  Carolina 
delegation  in  Congress.  William  S.  Ashe,  a staunch  Democrat,  had  charge  of  the 
bill  in  the  House.  ' In  1857,  the  City  of  Charleston  undertook  to  dredge  out  tie 

63 

channel  in  the  harbor  at  her  own  expense,  but  the  enterprise  was  soon  abandoned. 

A year  later  Senator  Hammond  wrote:  "Time,  I think,  will  show  that  vessels  of 

1000  tons  are  as  profitable  as  larger  ones,  to  carry  our  trade,  and  these  can  en- 

64 

ter  our  ports." 

The  discussion  of  direct  trade  involved  consideration  of  ways  and  menns  to 
promote  it.  There  were  innumerable  eloquent  appeals  to  the  Southern  states  and 
to  Southern  cities  to  "shake  off  their  lethargy,"  to  "rouse  themselves  from  their 
slumbers,"  and  to  emulate  the  example  of  their  Northern  sisters.  Individuals  were 
advised  to  devote  their  time  and  their  capital  to  an  enterprise  so  well  calculated 

60.  Senator  Benjamin,  of  Louisiana,  stated,  1854,  that  Virginia  had  not 
accepted  a dollar  of  the  money  voted  to  her  for  this  purpose  during  the  twenty 
years  preceding.  Senator  Mason,  of  Virginia,  confirmed  the  statement.  Cong. . 
Globe.,  33  Cong.,  1 Seas.,  App.,  1201. 

61.  Report  of  the  C^ojTmi^a^one/.s.  Appointed  at  the  Last  Session  ojf  the  General 

Ag£«r»foljL  Inquire  into  the  Feasibility  of  Improving  the  Channels’  of*  the  Bar  "and 
Other  Approaches  of.  Charleston  Harbor.  Nov. '*20.  1852.  p..  £.  “ 

^2.  Con . Globe . 33  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  1654.  Ashe  said  the  last  legislature 
had  unanimously  instructed  the  North  Carolina  representatives  in  Congress  to  work 
for  the  appropriation. 

63.  Charleston  Me rc ury , July  12,  1859  . 

64.  Ibid.,  April  12,  1859. 


110 


to  promote  the  prosperity  of  their  section.  Commercial  education  was  declared  de- 
sirable, and  a few  professorships  of  commerce  were  established.  Retail  merchants 
and  the  people  in  general  were  urged  to  patronize  those  merchants  of  Southern  sea- 
ports who  imported  goods  of  foreign  production  directly  from  abroad  in  preference 
to  those  who  bought  such  goods  in  the  North.  A rather  strong  sentiment  developed 
in  favor  of  the  imposition  by  the  state  legislatures  of  discriminatory  taxes  upon 
goods  of  foreign  production  imported  into  the  respective  states  by  way  of  Northern 
ports.  " \b  in  the  thirties  much  was  hoped  from  the  construction  of  railroads, 
particularly  those  which  opened  new  territory  or  were  calculated  to  attract  the 
trade  of  the  Ohio  valley  to  Southern  ports.  More  specific  were  the  many  projects 
for  establishing  steamship  lines  between  Southern  and  European  or  South  American 
ports,  or  the  attempts  to  induce  European  interests  to  establish  steamship  lines 
to  the  South . 

Before  1339  only  a few  steamships  had  crossed  the  Atlantic.  By  1350  the 
steamship  was  rapidly  supplanting  the  sailing  vessel  in  carrying  mails,  passen- 
gers, and  the  lighter  sorts  of  freight-  Great  Britain  had  embarked  upon  a policy 
of  encouraging  the  development  of  a steam  marine  by  granting  liberal  subsidies, 

and  the  United  States  followed  suite  by  making  liberal  contracts  with  steamship 

66 

companies  for  carrying  the  mails  to  Europe  and  elsewhere.'-  The  ports  selected  as 

terminii  for  steamship  lines  evidently  had  great  advantage*  in  foreign  commerce 

for  example 

over  unose  which  had  to  depend  upon  sailing  vessels  alone.  There  we  re* the  advan- 
tages of  greater  regularity  and  saving  of  time,  and  asthe  mails  and  passengers 
sought  the  steam-lines^  it  was  natural  that  the  importing  business  should  fol- 
low the  same  routes,*^  ike  mail  a assd  i rave-1  * Needless  to  say,  New  York  captured 
the  lion’s  share  of  the  steamship  lines,  and  thereby  increased  her  hold  upon  the 

65.  The  subjects  of  patronage  of  home  importing  merchants  and  discriminatory 

taxation  are  discussed  in  chapter  VI. 

* 

66.  Conf- . Globe . 31  Cong.,  1 Sees.,  i960. 

67.  See  Richmond  Yfhig.  March  11,  1851. 


■ 


. 


. 


. 

t 

< 

• 

»'  ft  ••  VH 

• 

, 

t 

. 

. 


. 


. 


Ill 

nation's  commerce.  These  facts  explain  why  so  many  of  the  plans  evolved  in  the 
South  for  achieving  commercial  independence  involved  the  establishment  of  lines  of 
regular  steamers  between  Southern  and  foreign  ports. 

No  state  discussed  more  schemes  for  rehabilitation  than  Virginia*  For  sev- 
eral years  prior  to  1850  internal  improvements  had  been  an  absorbing  topic  in  that 
state.  Among  the  improvements  projected  or  under  construction  none  figured  more 
prominently  than  the  Virginia  and  Tennessee  Railroad,  which  was  to  run  from  Lynch- 
burg to  the  Tennessee  line  in  the  direction  of  Knoxville,  and  was  designed  to  be 
a link  in  a chain  of  railroads  from  the  Chesapeake  to  Memphis  and  New  Orleans.  An- 
other project  was  the  connection  of  the  Chesapeake  and  the  Ohio  Valley  either  by 
canal,  as  some  advocated,  or  by  railroad.  Besides  increasing  the  transportation 
facilities  of  the  sections  through  which  they  ran,  these  roads  were  expected  to 
bring  to  Virginia  ports,  Richmond,  Petersburg,  and  Norfolk,  trade  from  the  Mis  - 
sissippi and  Ohio  valleys,  and  together  with  foreign  commerce,  which  they  would 
help  to  stimulate,  restore  to  the  Old  Dominion  the  commercial  position  she  once 
possessed.  The  political  crisis  of  1850  served  to  call  attention  sharply  to  the 
dependent  position  of  the  South,  and  lent  n strong  impetus  to  movements  for  com- 
mercial independence.  At  this  juncture  the  Portsmouth  Pilot  was  led  to  suggest  a 
direct  trade  convention  to  meet  at  Old  Point  Comfort,  July  4,  1850. 

The  Old  Point  Comfort  Convention,  while  not  well  attended,  enrolled  among  its 

68 

delegates  some  very  respectable  men  of  Virginia  and  neighboring  states.  ' The  rea- 
sons which  had  brought  the  delegates  together  were  made  very  clear  by  the  debates. 
Thoms  L.  Preston  described  the  advantages  Virginia,  possessed  for  securin’g  Western 
trade.  Senator  Morehead,  of  Kentucky,  assured  his  auditors  that  Kentucky  was  with 
the  South  in  interests,  feelings,  and  associations,  and  preferred  railroad  commun- 
ication with  Virginia  to  connection  with  the  North.  Congressman  Ewing,  of  Tennes- 
see, gave  the  warning  that  the  safety  of  the  South  depended  upon  preserving  the 

68.  Proceedings  are  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer.  July  9,  12,  1850. 


t 


. 

• 

* 

« 

i 

< 


. 


• 

. 

. 

. * 

I 


112 

equilibrium  of  the  sections,  which  could  be  done  by  developing  commerce  and  manu- 
factures in  the  South.  R.  K.  Meade,  of  Virginia,  emphasized  the  profits  derived 
by  the  North  from  conducting  Virginia’s  commerce  and  the  saving  which  would  be  ef- 
fected if  the  South  would  do  her  own  business.  The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  con- 
vention declared  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Federal  government  to  extend  as  much  aid 
to  a Southern  mail  line  to  Europe  as  to  Northern  lines,  recommended  state  appropri- 
ations in  aid  of  a line  of  steamers*  and  provided  for  a committee  to  memorialize 
Congress  and  the  Virginia  Legislature. 

In  the  closing  days  of  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-first  Congress  an  un- 
successful attempt  was  made  to  secure  favorable  action  upon  a bill  providing  for 
government  aid  for  lines  of  steamers  from  California  to  China  and  from  Philadelphia 
to  Antwerp.  A.  W.  Thompeon,  a Philadelphia  capitalist,  was  to  be  the  contractor. 

Senator  John  Y.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  moved  an  amendment  to  the  bill  stipulating  that 
the 

thatA Atlantic  line  should  alternate  trips  between  Norfolk  and  Philadelphia.  The 
amendment  whs  accepted  by  the  sponsors  of  the  bill.c5  In  the  short  session  of  the 
same  Congress  (1850-51)  Congressmen  Meade  and  Bocock,  of  Virginia,  tried  to  secure 
the  passage  of  a similar  bill  based  upon  Thompson's  plan  and  the  memorial  of  the 
Old  Point  Comfort  Convention^  but  it  was  defeated  **  '“’largely  because  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  McLane,  of  Maryland,  who  was  charged  with  fearing  that  aid  to  a Norfolk 
line  might  compromise  Baltimore’s  claims  to  government  subsidy  for  a line  of  her 
0vmf  ' w-c'  the  opposition  of  one  or  two  Virginia  representatives  who  could  not  over- 
come their  constitutional  scruples  against  government  subsidies.  Meanwhile  Thomp- 
son, taking  advantage  of  the  state  of  mind  in  Virginia,  had  petitioned  the  general 
assembly  for  aid  in  establishing  the  projected  line  between  Norfolk  and  Antwerp." 

69.  Cong.  Clobe , 31  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  2051. 

70.  Ibid,.,  31  Cong.,  2 Bess.,  600,  6l3 , 754,  768. 

71-  Ibid,.,  31  Cong.,  2 Bess.,  601;  Richmond  Tain.  Feb.  25,  1851.  McMullin, 
of  Virginia,  spoke  against  the  bill.  Cong.  Clobe.  31  Cong.,  2 Seas.,  758. 

72.  Virginia  Documents.  1850-51,  doc.  LXVI . 


t 


< 


' « < # 


itffi 


113 

He  stood  ready  to  advance  two-fifths  of  the  capital  required,  provided  the  state 
would  loan  him  the  use  of  Virginia  six  per  cent  bonds  for  ten  years  for  the  remain- 
ing three-fifths.  Another  proposal  submitted  to  the  general  assembly  about  the 
same  time  was  that  a joint  stock  company  be  chartered,  three-fifths  of  whose  stock 
should  be  subscribed  by  the  state,  and  two-fifths  by  municipal  and  private  corpor- 
ations and  by  individuals.^  A select  committee  of  the  House  of  Delegates  report- 
ed in  favor  of  Thompson’s  proposition,  but  its  friends  were  unable  to  secure  act- 
ion before  the  legislature  adjourned,  l85l.(* 

In  September,  1851,  a well  attended  Mercantile  Convention  was  held  in  Rich- 
mond for  the  purpose  of  creating  public  interest  in  direct  trade  and  working  out  s 
plan  in  support  of  which  ell  interests  and  factions  in  the  state  could  unite."  It 
proved  impossible  to  harmonize  differences.  The  convention  divided  upon  the  ques- 
tion whether  a line  of  steamers  should  be  recommended  or  it  should  be  left  to  fu- 
ture investigation  to  determine  which  was  preferable,  p line  of  steamers  or  a line 

of  sailing  vessels.  The  latter  alternative  was  adopted.  A resolution  calling  for 

federal  aid  provoked  a.  cleavage  along  party  lines  and  had  to  be  withdrawn.  Reso- 

lutions offered  by  D.  H.  London,  Richmond  importer  and  president  of  the  Central 
Southern  Rights  Association  of  Virginia,  in  favor  of  di aciminatory  taxation  of  in- 
direct imports  were  tabled  after  an  acrimonious  debate  by  an  almost  unanimous  vets'. 
The  net  product  of  the  convention  was  a blanket  resolution  in  favor  of  lines  of 
steamers  or  sailing  vessels  to  Europe  and  South  America. 

In  May',  l8£2,  the  State  Senate  passed  a bill  based  on  A.  17.  Thompson’s  plan;^' 
but  the  House  of  Delegates  allowed  it  to  go  over  to  the  next  session,  when,  in  spite 
73.  Virginia  Documents,  1 850-51 , doc.  LXX. 

74 • X^id ..  1850-51,  doc.  LXX;  Richmond  Whig.  March  15,  1851 . 

75*  Proceedings  are  in  the  Richmond  Whig.  Sept.  11,  12,  end  17,  1851.  The  re- 
port from  the  Committee  of  13,  William  Burwell,  chairman,  is  in  Virginia  Documents. 
1851-52,  doc.  I,  p.  41  ff  ; also  in  DeBow’s  Review.  XII,  30  ff. 


76.  Richmond  Enquirer.  Dec.  7,  1852. 


114 


of  the  support  of  Coventor  Johnson,  Senator  Mason,  and  on  all  but  unanimous  press, 

77 

it  was  defeated.  The  defeat  was  due  to  inability  tc  agree  upon  the  mode  and  time 

73 

of  lending  state  aid,  end  to  the  rivalry  of  the  little  bay  ports.  It  was  this 
9ame  spirit  of  jealousy  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  adoption  of  a practicable 
policy  of  internal  improvements.  The  net  result  of  all  the  discussion  and  wire- 
pulling of  three  years  wee  practically  nil  as  far  as  foreign  commerce  was  concern- 
ed; they  did  serve  in  a measure  the  secondary  purpose  of  securing  tide  water  sup- 
port for  state  aid  to  railroads  to  the  Yfe at . Shortly  after  the  Old  Point  Comfort 
convention  New  York  interests  established  a line  of  steamships  between  New  York 
and  the  Chesapeake;  and  Virginians  thought  the  action  had  been  influenced  by  the 
movements  in  that  state  looking  to  the  establishment  of  direct  trade. ^ In  1851 
Richmond  firms  began  shipping  flour  to  Rio  de  Janeiro  and  importing  hides,  coffee, 
ar.d  other  South  American  products.  This  trn.de  had  attained  some  importance  by 

i860.80 

v/hile  these  plans  and  projects  were  being  debated  in  Virginia,  projects  else- 
where had  come  to  naught.  The  people  of  South  Carolina  late  in  1850  were  expect- 
ant of  secession.  The  time  wa.s  considered  auspicious  for  inaugurating  communica- 
tion with  Europe  by  a line  of  steamers.  A number  of  citizens  of  Charleston  se- 
cured from  the  state  legislature  a charter  for  the  South  Carolina  and  European 
Steamship  Company  to  build  two  steamers  to  ply  between  Charleston  and  Liverpool. 
Subscription  books  were  opened  and  the  stock  promptly  taken.  One  of  the  steamers 
the  South  Carolina,  was  built— at  Green  Port  Long  Island~-and  proceeded  to  Charles  - 
ton.  After  loading  it  was  found  she  could  not  pass  the  bar.  The  vessel  was  sold 

77*  Governor  Joseph  Johnson’s  message  of  Dec.  5,  1853*  Virginia  Documents. 
1853-53,  doc.  I.  Letter  of  J.  Y.  Mason  to  D.  H.  London,  Sept.  18,  1852.  Lit. 
Me^. , XVIII,  591  ff.  Cf . Richmond  Enquirer.  Dec.  7,  1852. 

78.  Wm . S.  Forrest,  Sketches  of  Norfolk.  296;  Richmond  Enquirer.  Apr.3C,  1852* 

79-  Richmond  Enquirer.  Dec.  10,  1852.  Cf.  DeBow’s  Review.  XIV.  901. 

8°.  DeBow’s  Review.  XII,  312. 


115 


and  the  project  abandoned.  The  only  line  of  steamship  lines  between  Charleston 

and  a foreign  port  before  the  War  was  the  mail  line  to  Havana,  established  in 
1847,  and  owned  by  M.  C.  Mordecai,  of  Charleston.  The  mail  steamers  between  Hew 
York  and  Chagres  touched  regularly  at  Charleston  and  Savannah.  The  Alabama  legis- 
lature, 1852,  chartered  the  Alabama  Direct  Trade  and  Btohange  Company  with  power 
to  own  ships,  buy  and  sell  produce  and  manufactures  at  home  and  abroad,  receive 
deposits,  deal  in  domestic  and  foreign  exchange,  and  make  advances  on  produoe, 

GO 

manufactures,  and  merchandise.  Ho  tangible  results  follows. 

Considerable  interest  was  manifested  throughout  the  south,  1852-1854,  in  a 

proposal  to  establish  a line  of  steamers  between  some  Southern  port  and  the  South 

of  the  Amazon  River,  and  in  the  question  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Amazon. 

Peru  and  Bolivia,  upon  the  headwaters  of  the  Amazon,  declared  the  river  open  to 

the  oommerce  of  the  world,  but  Brazil  refused  to  allow  foreign  vessels  to 

navigate  it.  Lieutenant  M.  F.  Maury,  Superintendent  of  the  Haval  Observatory 

at  Washington,  became  interested  in  the  subject,  and  memorialized  Congress, 

May  1852,  to  establish  a line  of  mail  steamers  between  Horfolk,  Charleston,  or 

Savannah  and  Para.  He  further  suggested  that  diplomatic  efforts  be  made  to 

83 

secure  the  free  navigation  of  the  Amazon.  He  appealed  to  Secretary  of  State 

84 

Webster  to  take  the  matter  up,  but  Webster  refused  to  move.  A series  of  long 

articles  by  Maury  on  "Amazonia”  was  published  in  DeBow*  s Review  and  the  leading 

85 

newspapers  of  the  South.  Maury  presented  the  subject  in  the  Southern  Commercial 

86 

Convention  at  Baltimore,  December  1852.  The  subject  was  given  consideration 

at  the  sessions  of  the  Commercial  Convention  in  Memphis  and  Charleston,  1853 

87 

and  1854;  both  endorsed  the  project  for  a line  of  mail  steamers.  Maury  re- 

81.  A.  Brisbane  to  Hammond,  Feb.  25,  1851,  J.  J3.  Hammond  PapersiDeBow*  s Review,X, 
203,315;X7III,68;Hational  Intelligencer.Oot.18,1851 :Richmond  Enquirer. June  7,1853. 

82.  DeBow’ s Review.  X,  445-47;  XII,  318;  XIV,  437-49. 

83.  Memorial,  Western  J Qumal  and  Civilian.  VIII,  174-80. 

84.  Maury  to  Blackford,  Sept.  24,  1852,  M.  F.  Maury  Pacers. 

85.  Also  in  book  form.  DeBow’ s Review.  XVI,  231,  Articles  are  in  ibid. , XIV,  136- 


* 


. . _ a 


. 


- — — _ . _ * 


* ’ 


• - 


11 6 

presented  that  the  Amazon  Valley  would  be  settled  and  developed,  arid  on  immense 

commerce  would  grow  up  between  the  region  and  the  United  States.  The  South  wae 

more  advantageously  located  for  such  a commerce  than  was  the  North.  Commerce  with 

South  America  would  effect  the  commercial  regeneration  of  the  South.  It  v/as  this 

88 

possibility  which  awakened  30  much  interest  in  the  Amazon  among  Southerners.  From! 
time  to  time  all  through  the  decade  the  opinion  was  expressed  that  the  South  should 
"look  to  the  south"  rather  than  to  Europe  in  her  efforts  to  develop  a foreign  com- 

89 

rnerce.  The  line  of  mail  steamers  was  not  established;  but  the  Amazon  was  opened 
to  the  navigation  of  all  nations,  largely  as  a result  of  Maury’s  efforts. 

One  of  the  most  grandiose  schemes  for  establishing  direct  trade  v.-as  that  con- 
ceived by  Col.  A.  Dudley  Mann,  of  Virginia.  He  had  seen  being  built  in  England 
the  Great  Eastern,  by  far  the  largest  ship  built  to  that  time.  In  a letter  to  the 
people  of  the  slaveholding  states,  August,  1856,  he  proposed  the  establishment  of 

e line  of  four  of  these  mammoth  steamers  to  ply  between  the  Chesapeake  and  Milford 
90 

Haven,  England.  So  hold  a plan  captivated  the  imaginations  of  the  Southern  people. 

91 

'"lie  Southern  Commercial  Convention  at  Savannah  endorsed  it.'~  In  July  1857  an  en- 
thusiastic convention  in  it*  support  was  hold  at  Old  Point  Comfort,  Virginia.'^  Ex- 
Presioent  j.yler  presided.  Letters  from  Secretary  of  State  Cass  and  other  members 
of  the  cabinet  were  read.  Books  were  opened  for  subscriptions  of  stock.  An  appeal 

85.  (Continued  U5;  4-49-60;  556-6? ; XV,  3 6-43  - See  also  XII,  3 8l  ff,-XVI,  231- 
51* 

86.  Western  Journal  and  Civilian.  IX,  321-28. 

87.  DeB.cjy’s  Review.  XV,  254-74;  XVI,  640;  XVII,  201,  402-4. 

^ 88 . Maury  expected  that  the  Southern  states  would  soon  have  a redundant  slave 
population  and  hoped  the  Amazon  Valley  would  prove  an  outlet.  Western  Jour,  and  Civ, 
IX,  328;  DeBcw,  Industrial  Resources.  Ill,  125.  “ " ~ 

89.  For*  example,  letter  of  Gov.  H . A.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  to  a citizen  of  Norfoli 
in  Barton  H.  Wise,  Henry  A.  Wise  of  Virginia.  21 6 f ;DeBow* s Review.  XXVI,  73-6. 

90.  Ibid.,  XXI,  411-25. 

91  * XXII,  96.  Mann  was  present  and  a member  of  the  general  committee. 

^.^Proceedings,  DgBow '.e.  Review,  XXIII,  321ff.;XXlV,  352-76';  Richmond  Enouirer 
Aug.  1,  3,  5,  1857.  — “ 


117 


was  made  to  sectional  feeling.  With  a vi6\v  to  secure  a wide  diffusion  of  the 

stock  among  the  people,  subscriber’s  were  limited  for  a period  to  one  $100  share 

each.  Most  of  the  prominent  men  of  Virginia  subscribed.  President  Buchanan  head- 

91 

ed  the  list  in  the  district  of  Columbia.  The  Virginia  legislature,  almost  with- 
out opposition,  granted  a charter  to  "The  Atlantic  Steam  Ferry  Company,"  March, 

IO59  . The  thirty  six  directors  of  the  company  must  all  be  residents  of  the  slave 
holding  states  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  were  to  be  apportioned  on  the  ba- 
sis of  stock  subscribed.  But  by  this  time  interest  had  begun  to  wane.  The  Commer- 
cial Convention,  meeting  at  Knoxville,  August,  1857,  had  refused  to  recommend  the 

95 

Steam  Ferry.  Many  pronounced  it  chimerical.  It  was  not  completely  abandoned,  how- 

9 6 

ever,  until  the  war.' 

Several  other  direct  trade  projects  were  under  way  or  under  consideration  in 
Virginia  on  the  eve  of  the  war.  A convention  of  merchants  and  officials  of  four- 
teen railroads  net  at  Bristol,  Virginia,  June,  1857,  upon  call  of  officers  of  the 

Virginia  and  Tennessee  Railroad,  then  on  the  point  of  completion,  to  consider  the 

97 

subject  of  direct  trade.  William  Ballard  Preston,  a former  secretary  of  the  navy, 
wa3  sent  to  Europe  to  disseminate  information  in  regard  to  the  demand  for  foreign 
goods  in  Virginia  and  her  hinterland  and  to  confer  with  capitalists,  especially 
the  owners  of  the  Great  Eastern,  upon  the  establishment  of  a steam  ship  line.  French 
officials  and  capitalists  were  much  interested  in  extending  the  foreign  trade  of 
the  Empire  at  the  time.  Preston  was  able  to  make  a conditional  agreement  with  of- 
ficials of  the  Orleans  Railway  Company  relative  to  a line  of  steamers  between  Nor- 

o O 

folk  and  the  Mouth  of  the  Loire. ;uThe  Virginia  legislature  ratified  the  agreement 
93  * Richmond  Enquirer.  Xug.  11,  17,  1857 . 

94.  .jets.  of.  the  General  Assembly,  1857-3,  p.125;  DeBow's  Review.  XXIV, 3 $2,3 75. 
95*  New  York  He  raid . Aug.  11,  17,  1857 . 

96.  Ibid.  Mar.  19,  l86i. 

97.  Richmond  Enquirer,  June  3,  1857; DeBow’s  Review,  XXII,  553,  XXIII,  86. 

98.  Ibid.,  XXVI,  584-5. 


118 


by  an  act  of  March  27,  1858  incorporating  the  Norfolk  and  St.  Mazaire  Navigation 
99/ 

Company.  One-half  the  stock  was  to  be  subscribed  in  America,  one-half  in  France, 
the  directorate  also  should  be  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  Americans  and  French- 
men. American  interests  were  to  subvent  the  company  to  the  extent  of  $12,500  per 
round  trip — this  subsidy  it  was  hoped  the  Federal  government  would  grant  for  car- 
rying  the  mails  — and  the  French  Government  was  to  be  asked  to  lend  assistance.  A 
long  correspondence  between  the  president  of  the  Merchants*  and  Mechanics’  exchange 
of  Norfolk  and  M.  Lacoutre  and  other  gentlemen  of  France,  and  the  visit  of  an  ag- 
ent, John  D.  Myrick,  to  France,  resulted  in  the  trial  trip  of  the  steamer,  Lone 

Otar,  which  was  said  to  have  been  successful  and  have  proved  the  feasibility  cf 
100 

direct  trade.  By  an  act  of  February  2,  1858  the  Virginia  legislature  chartered 
the  Southern  Virginia  Navigation  Company  to  establish  a line  of  steamships  or  pack- 
ets between  the  Chesapeake  and  Europe  Before  November  i860  the  company  had 
built  one  ship,  engaged  another,  and  had  two  or  three  others  under  construction.  ' J< 

' 0n  very  eve  of  secession  the  Virginia  legislature  incorporated  a Richmond  and 

I 

Liverpool  Packet  Company,  and  extended  welcome  to  a proposal  of  M.  Pierre  and  Bro- 
thers, of  Paris,  to  establish  a line  of  steamers  between  Virginia  and  France . ^ 
Elsewhere  projects  did  not  reach  the  stage  of  development  they  did  in  Virgin- 
ia. In  1857  w.  C.  Barney,  of  Washington,  attempted  to  promote  a line  of  steamers 
between  New  Orleans  and  Bordeaux^France . He  memorialized  Congress  for  the  usual 
subsidy  for  carrying  the  mails.  The  House  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post 
Roads  reported  favoraoly  upon  it.  The  Boreaux  Chamber  of  Commerce  promised  cooper- 
ation and  a loan.  A prospectus  was  got  out  and  subscription  books  opened;  but  the 
99 • Acts  of  the  General  Assembly.  1857-8,  p.  127- 

100.  Third  Annual  Report,  of  the  Merchants*  and  Mechanics’  Exchange  of  Norfolk 

Virginia.  June  i860,,  p .13.  ~~  — — ' 

101.  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly.  1857-8,  p.  187. 

102 • York  Herald.  Nov..  26,  i860. 

103.  Act 3 of  the  General  Assembly,  l86l . p.  278 , 342. 


, 


. 


- 


- 


. 


, 


- 

( 


. 


. 

* 


, 


. 


' 


, 


< . . 


' 


. 


« 


. 

* 


, 


* 


119 

project  got  no  farther.^4  In  i860  British  parties  proposed  to  establish  a line  of 

six  iron  steamers  between  New  Orleans  and  Liverpool.  The  vessels  were  to  be  built 

in  England  and  fly  the  British  flag,  but  one-hnlf  the  stock  was  to  be  subscribed 

io5 

by  Americans.  The  project  was  endorsed  by  the  New  Orleans  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Thus  virtually  all  of  these  projects  (and  several  not  described)  for  estab- 
lishing lines  of  ocean  steamers  came  to  naught.  Had  the  Federal  government  not 
abandoned,  1859,  the  policy  of  subsidizing  steamship  lines,  it  is  very  probable 
that  one  or  more  Southern  lines  would  have  been  in  operation  before  l86l.  Trans- 
Atlantic  lines  of  steamships  had  not  yet  proved  profitable  without  government  aid. 
The  failure  to  secure  steamship  lines  does  not  signify  that  the  direct  foreign  im- 
ports did  not  increase  during  the  decade.  A few  lines  of  sailing  packets  were  es- 
tablished; and  the  number  of  irregular  vessels  entered  considerably  increased,  as 

106 

did  the  total  value  of  the  direct  imports."'  But  there  was  no  revolution  in  the 
course  of  Southern  commerce.  In  fact  the  employment  of  steam  vessels  in  the  coast- 
ing trade  tended  to  fix  Southern  commerce  in  its  former  channels.  Several  lines 
of  steamships  were  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade  between  New  York  and  New  Orleans 
and  other  Southern  ports  in  i860.  Such  lines  had  been  established  in  response  to 
the  demands  of  actual  commerce.  The  tendency  of  the  times  was  toward  closer  com- 
mercial relationships  between  the  sections,  the  efforts  of  the  advocates  of  direct 
trade  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

104.  DeBow*  s Review.  XXII,  31^-20;  410-14,  554;  XXIII,  415-13. 

105.  Ibid. , XXVIII,  462-4. 

106.  See  the  tables  in  the  appendix. 


. 


, 


- < 


. 


' 


, 


3 


, 


■ 


* 


' 


. 


' 


* 


* 

< ■ . 


< 


CHAPTER  V 


The  Souther n Com  ier  cial  Convention , 1853-1859 

During  the  years  1853-1859  there  met  annually  or  oftener , in  urn  at 
Baltimore,  Memphis,  Charleston,  Her  Orleans,  Ric  monel,  Savannah,  Knoxville, 
Montgomery,  and  Vicksburg,  sessions  of  the  so-called  Southern  Commercial  Con- 
vention. After  the  first,  the  time  and  place  of  meeting,  and  to  sore  extent,  u he 
organization  and  program  of  each,  was  determined  by  its  predecessor;  so  t ore 
was  a degree  of  continuity  in  their  endeavors.  Several  of  the  gatherings  •ere 
very  respectable  in  point  cf  numbers;  in  most  of  them,  all  or  nearly  all  of  the 
Southern  States. were  represented;  some  able  and  ell  known  men  were  among  the 
delegates  in  every  case;  their  proceedings  were  '-'at died  r/ith  considerable  inter- 
est in  the  South,  and  even  in  the  1 forth.  As  their  name  indicates,  they  were 
sectional  in  character.  The  term  ’’core  ercial"  does  not  accurately  indicate  their 
purpose,  but  cannot  be  considered  a misnomer.  A study  cf  this  series  cf  con- 
ventions is  conducive  to  a better  under  standing  of  he  state  of  public  opinion 
in  the  South  during  the  decade  before  the  war,  particularly  u on  questions 
affecting  the  material  progress  and  prosperity  cf  the  section. 

The  origin  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  is  not  to  be  explained 
by  any  single  event  or  isolated  circumstance.  A non-political  or  3emi-  polixical 
convention  was  by  no  means  a new  thing  in  the  South  in  1852.  Although 
none  of  these  assembled  prior  to  that  time  was  puite  of  -he  type  of  the 
Southern  Commercial  Convention,  several  may  be  considered  forerunners  of  it. 
Tie  direct  trade  conventions  of  the  late  thirties  may  be  so  classed,  although 
they  were  more  restricted  in  their  objects,  and  they  were  not  Southern  conven- 
tions.x Those  held  in  Virginia  were  gatherings  of  Virginians  with  a 
few  scattering  delegates  from  border  North  Carolina  counties.  They  were 

1.  See  Chapter  1 

2.  Savannah  Republi can , April  7,  1838. 


121 


interested  primarily  in  local  problems,  althougn  there  was  recognition  that 
the  cause  of  Virginia  was  in  a way  the  cause  of  the  South,  and  although  the 
connection  between  them  and  the  direct  trade  conventions  of  South  Carolina 
end  Georgia  was  very  close.  The  Charleston  and  Augusta  conventions,  like- 
wise, were  composed  almost  entirely  of  Soutn  Carolina  and  Georgia  men. 
Attempts  to  win  the  younger  states  further  west  to  the  cause  failed  of  the 
accomplishment;  they  were  urged  to  send  delegates  to  each  of  the  conventions, 
but  did  not  do  so.  Among  other  reasons  for  this  was  the  fact  that  the  South- 
west was  not  yet  concerned  about  "Southern  decline." 

More  widely  representative  then  the  direct  trade  conventions,  but  per- 
haps with  less  justification  considered  a forerunner  of  the  Southern  Commer- 
cial Convention,  was  the  Southwestern  Convention  in  Memphis,  November,  1^45. 

/ 

In  composition  and  sentiment  it  was  more  Western  than  Southern,  Delegates 
were' present  from  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri, and  Iowa  Territory,  as. 
well  as  from  states  of  the  Southwest  and  South,  The  primary  purpose  of  the 
meeting  was  to  present  the  demands  of  the  We3t  for  the  improvement  by  the 
Federal  government  of  the  navigation  of  Western  rivers  — demands  which  were 
very  insistent  for  several  years  prior  to  the  building  of  railroads  in  the 
Mississippi  Valley.  An  attempt  was  made  to  find  constitut ional  justification 
for  the  improvement  by  the  Federal  government  of  the  Mississippi  and  its 
tributaries  which  would  be  acceptable  to  all  parties  in  me  West  and  South. 
John  C,  Calhoun,  who  understood  better  than  any  other  Southern  leader,  the 
growing  power  of  the  West  and  the  strength  of  the  demand  for  improvement  of 

Western  rivers  and  harbors,  presided  over  the  convention.  He  bad  not  yet 
abandoned  hopes  of  attaining  the  presidency  of  the  United  States;  he  was 
firmly  convinced  of  the  desirability  of  maintaining  the  political  alliance  of 
the  South  and  West,  In  his  address  before  the  convention,  and  later  in  his 

3.  Proceedings  are  in  J ournal  of  the  Proc ee dings  of  the  S o ut h we s t e ra 


, 


. 

* 


122 


report  to  the  Senate  upon  the  memorial  of  the  convention,  he  went  to  auch 
lengths  in  meeting  the  views  of  the  Western  men  that  it  was  with  difficulty 
he  held  his  strict  construct ionist  followers  in  line,4 5 6 7 8  It  is  true  the  con- 
vention dealt  with  other  subjects.  It  was  employed  to  stimulate  interest  in 
railroad  communication  between  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  South  Atlantic 
ports;  a system  of  railroads  w as  outlined  which  would  effectually  bind  together 
the  South  and  Southwest.  5 xt  endorsed  in  a qualified  manner  the  warehousing 
system,  which  some  hoped  would  promote  the  foreign  commerce  of  Southern  ports.  J 
It  gave  some  attention  to  the  question  of  overproduction  of  cotton,  and  to 
diversification  of  agriculture  and  the  introduction  of  manufacturing  as 
remedies.'  The  sequel  of  the  Memphis  convention  was  not  so  much  the  Southern 
Commercial  Convention,  however,  as  it  was  the  krp  Rivers  and  Harbors  Convention 

i*l  Ch  it±<IO  r. 

heldAin  July  1847. 

Q,  Continued.)  Convention,  begun  and  held  in  the  city  of  Memphis,  on  the 
12th  of  November  1*45.  Of.  DeBow's  Review,  I,  7-22  j Niles  ' Register 

LXVIII,  312;  Memphis  Daily  Eagle,  Nov.  18,  1845.  There  were  present  52$ 
delegates  from  12  states  and  one  territory. 

4.  Calhoun 's  address  to  the  convention  is  in  the  Journal  of  the  Proceedings 
of  the  Southwestern  Convention,  p 7 ff.  His  report  to  the  Senate  on  the 
Memorial  of  the  convention  is  in  Works  V,  246-93.  For  Calhoun's  motives,  see 
Calhoun  to  James  Edward  Calhoun,  July  2,  1846;  to  Thomas  G.  Clemson,  July  11, 
1846;  Duff  Green  to  Calhoun  Sept.  24,  1845,  Calhoun  Correspondence.  For 
reception  of  Calhoun's  address  and  report,  see  Niles  1 Register  LXIX  212, 
quoting  the  Charleston  Mercury  and  other  journals;  So.  Quar.  Rev.  X,  377  ff, 
441-512,  515;  De  Bow's  Review  I,  83  f;  Cong.  Globe.  33  Cong.,  1 Sess.  246; 
Calhoun  to  Mrs.  Thomas  G.  Clemson,  June  11,  1846,  Calhoun  Correspondence, 

5.  Journal , 29-40. 

6.  Ibid.  $6-$$;  Memphis  Daily  Eagle  , Dec,  17,  1845. 

7.  J ournal , 41-55. 

8.  Proceedings  in  rfiles  * Register.  LXXII,  309-10;  331-33;  344-^6; 

365-67. 


123 


The  alliance  of  the  South  and  West  had  carried  the  talker  lariff  bill 
of  lft 46 ; but  tne  Rivers  and  Harbors  bill  of  tnat  year  had  been  carried  oy 
log-rolling  methods;  tne  friends  of  Eastern  harbors,  Lake  harbors,  and 
Western  rivers  pooling  their  interests.  President  Polk  vetoed  the  bj.ll. 

He  did  not  follow  the  c onstitut ional  arguments  employed  by  Calhoun  in  nis 
report  to  the  Senate  upon  the  Memorial  of  the  Memphis  convention,  cut 
employed  reasoning  which  Calhoun  believed  would  preclude  the  possioility  of 
uniting  the  South  and  West  in  support  of  a reasonable  prgram  of  river  improve- 
ment,1C  The  Chicago  convention,  which  was  a s strongly  dominated  by  the  Whigs 
as  the  Memphis  convention  ha.d  been  by  the  Democrats,  and  which  contained  more 
Eastern  men  than  the  Memphis  convention  had  contained  Southern,  sought  to  make 
capital  of  Polk's  veto.  There  was  an  attempt  to  unite  tne  West  and  East  upon 
broad  Whig  principles,  much  broader  than  Calhoun  could  accept.  It  was  more 


than  intimated  that  the  way  to  improve  rivers  and  harbors  was  to  elect  a 
president  who  would  sign  a bill  forjthat  purpose,-^-  The  Memphis  convention 
had  been  used  to  stimulate  interest  in  railroad  corrmunicat  ion  between  the 
Mississippi  Valley  and  tne  South  Atlantic  seaboard;  the  Chicago  convention  was 
similarly  used  to  promote  various  projects  for  railroads  between  the  East  and 
the  We st,  12 

In  October,  1849,  a great  Pacific  Railroad  O0nvention  met  in  Memphis. lo 
Its  purpose  was  to  crystallize  sentiment  in  favor  of  a railroad  to  the  Pacific, 
and  give  a demonstration  of  the  strength  of  the  supporters  of  a Southern  route, 


9.  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  IV,  460-66 

10.  Calhoun  to  James  Edward  Calhoun,  Aug.  8,  1846;  to  J.L.I’.  Curry, 
Sept.  14;  to  Thomas  G.  Clemson,  Sept,  20,  Calhoun  Correspondence,. 

4,2/0;  Liam,  Xtl,  tveftrfevfc  Speech  at  tyytt 

tai.^  Calhoun  to  Duff  Green,  June  10,  1847,  ibid;  Niles.  Register,  LX  AH, 

266- the  opening  of  the  Northern  New  Hampshire  Railway;  Whig  Review,  VI, 

111-122;  DeBow's  Review,  IV,  122-27;  291-296. 

12.  Whig  Review.  VI,  111  ff., 


' 


: - , 


124 


whose  eastern  terminus  would  presumably  be  Memphis.  Five  days  earlier  a 

still  bigger  convention  had  been  &eld  in  3t,  Louis,  also,  for  the  purpose  of 

crystallizing  sentiment  in  favor  of  a railroad  to  the  Pacific  and  canvassiig 

14 

the  support  which  a central  route  could  command.  Both  of  these  conventions 
professed  to  look  upon  the  construction  of  the  Pacific  Railroad  as  a great 
national  object,  which  should  receive  in  some  way  the  aid  of  the  Fdderal 
Government,  and  wnich  would  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the  whole  nation;  out 
each  was  largely  sectional  in  composition  and  sentiment,  and  each  saw  the 
special  advantage,  political  and  commercial,  to  accrue  to  the  section  and 
locality  fortunate  enough  to  secure  the  eastern  terminus  of  the  proposed 
railroad.  Inasmuch  as  the  Memphis  conventions  was  so  largely  secxional^and 
dealt  with  a project  whose  accomplishment  would  do  much  to  promote  the 
progress  and  prosperity  of  the  South  and  which  occupied  much  of  the  time  of 
the  later  conventions,  it  may  be  considered  a forerunner  cf  tne  Soutnein 
Commercial  Convention. 

A local  railroad  convention,  which  met  in  New  Orleans  in  the  summer 
of  1851,  appointed  a committee  to  address  the  people  of  the  Southern  and 
Western  states  in  the  interest  of  a general  railroad  convention  of  the  South 
and  Wyst  to  meet  in  New  Orleans  in  January  1852.1j  The  address,  while 

13. Minutes  and  Proceedings  of  the  Memphis  Convention,  asse  oled  October 
23.  I845;DeBow»s  Review.  VII.  56,188,  556,  551. Cf  .Nat  ional  Plan  of  an  Atlantic 
and  Pac  if  ic  Ptailroad  and  Remarks  of  Albert  Pike,  Made  i he  re  on,  At  Memphis, 
November,  1845. 

14. Proceedings  of  the  National  Railroad  Convention,  which  assembled^  in, 
the  City  of  St'.  Louis",  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  October,  1845.  ^A  third 
Facific  Railroad  Convention  was  held  in  Philadelphia,  April  1-3,  1850* 
Proceedings  of  the  Convent  ion  in  Favor  of  a National  Railroad,  to.  the^  Pac  if  ic^ 
Ocean — Held  in  Philudelpnia,  April  1 , 2 and  3_,  1^ 50, 


l5.De  Bow  *s  Reviem,XIJ.74,  217,  341,465 


125 


emphasising  the  railroad  needs  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  of  New  Orleans 
in  particular,  did  not  overlook  "Southern  decline"  and  aie  necessity  for 
united  action  in  the  South  to  advance  her  commercial  interests,  "They  (the 
Southern  states;  have  an  interest  in  each  other’s  prosperity,  founded  upon 
common  hopes,  and  fears,  and  dangers  The  interests  of  Mobile,  New  Orleans, 
Charleston  or  Savannah,  in  each  other’s  advancement  are  stronger  tnan  their 
interest  in  the  advancement  of  Bos  ton  and  New  York,  Tne3e  interests  should 
preclude  all  jealousies,  and  induce  a generous  co-operation  in  every  instance 
where  the  benefit  of  the  whole  South  is  at  issue?10  convention  which  met 

an  pursuance  of  this  call,4-'  while  primarily  interested  in  launching  New 
Orleans  and  Louisiana  upon  an  internal  improvement  program,  haii  many  of  . 
earmarks  of  the  later  C cial  Convention,  Delegates  were  present  from 
eleven  3tate3,  Frequent  references  were  made  to  Southern  commercial  dependence 
and  its  remedy,  A committee  on  railroad  routes,  William  Surwell,  of  Virginia, 
chairman,  reported  a litt  of  internal  improvements  which  were  regarded  as  not 
only  indispensable  to  the  development  of  the  agricultural,  commercial,  and 
mineral  wealth  of  the  Southwestern  states,  but  also  as  "essential  to  the 
equality  and  unity  of  the  states  of  thi3  confederacy]1^® 

16,  DeBow’s  Review,  XI,  142-78  (quotation  from  p.  154), address  t.c  the  People 
of  the  Southern  and  Western  States , and  mo  re  particularly  to  tho  of  Louis  lana, 
leo.as.  Ih.ss-i.s3i;.  Alabama.  Tennessee , Arkansas . lucky  and  !.i3sc.  sri. 

New  Orleans.  18  51  (pamphlet). 

17,  Proceedings,  in  DeBcw  ’sAeview.  XiX,  305-332,  543^  551,  563. 

18,  DeBow  *s  rievlew.  Xi,i,  315. 


t 


' 


126 


By  this  time  conditions  had  reached  a stage  when  a Southern  Commercial 
Convention  could  be  assembled.  The  internal  transportation  systems  of  the 
country  were  developing  along  lines  which  promised  to  bind  tne  Northwest 
firmly  to  the  bast  and  the  Southwest  to  the  old  South.  The  Pacific  Railroad 
question  had  taken  on  the  form  of  a sectional  struggle  over  the  selection  of 
a route.  The  entire  South  had  ceen  interested  in  tne  discussion  of  diversi- 
fication of  industry  and  the  developement  of  cotton  manufactures,  and  had 
been  awakened  thereby  to  a realization  of  the  disparity  of  the  sections  m 
industrial  developement.  The  people  of  other  Southern  cities  and  states  than 
those  of  the  Atlantic  Seaboard  had  become  aware  of  Southern  commercial  decline 
and  its  baleful  effects,  and  were  talking  direct  trqde.  Finally,  and  more 
important,  the  sectional  struggle  over  slavery  nad  reached  a most  bitter  stage, 
the  So&tnern  Convention,  the  long  dream  of  men  of  the  South  Carolina  ocnool, 
had  met  in  Nashville,  and  the  Union  had  been  in  danger  of  dissolution.  True, 
a compromise  had  been  effected  after  a protracted  debate,  but  it  had  been 
accepted  in  the  South  with  misgivings  and, in  several  states,  only  alter 
violent  political  struggles.  And  the  effect  of  the  whole  episode  was  not  to 
allay  sectionalism  but  to  aggravate  it.  The  old  alliance  of  South  and  .'/est 
was  breaking  up.  The  number  was  growing  rapidly  of  those  who  felt  that  tne 
South  could  trust  only  herself,  that  the  Southern  people  must  unite  and  learn 
the  art  of  co-operation,  that  they  must  develop  their  resources  and  increase 
their  wealth  and  population, , i.f  the  South  were  to  maintain  her  equality  in 

the  Union  or  her  independence  out  of  it. 

it  is  difficult  to  state  whence  came  the  specific  suggestion,  wnicn  re- 
sulted in  the  call  of  the  first  meeting  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention. 
James  ft.  B.  De  Bow,  a true  son  of  South  Carolina,  had  oeen  a persistent  pro- 
ponent of  the  idea  of  bringing  the  South  together  in  convention  and  had  used 


127 


De  Bow's  Review  to  effect  with  that  end  .in  view.  . When  the  interest  in 
cotton  manufacture*  was  <*t  its  height,  De  Bow  suggested  a manufacturer*'  con- 
vention • ^ He  tried  to  arrange  the  meeting  of  an  industrial  convention 
in  Hew  Orleans  in  the  spring  of  18 51. 20  He  claimed  to  have  been  one  of  the 
original  Southern  Convention  men  and  was  disappointed  that  "action”  could 
not  be  taken.  After  the  compromise  measures  had  been  enacted  te  felt  that 
the  danger  to  the  South  was  only  postponed,  and  favored  a Southern 
Convention  to  agree  upon  what  would  constitute  grounds  for  resistance,  a 
Southern  mercantile  convention  as  a proper  means  of  strengthening  the  South 
by  promoting  shipbuilding  and  direct  trade,  thus  making  possible  the  reten- 
tion at  home  of  millions  of  wealth  contributed  annually  to  the  North,  and  a 
Southern  manufacturers'  convention  to  agree  to  pay  no  more  tribute  to  Northern 
looms.  21  in  the  New  Orleans  Kailroad  Convent  ion,  January,  1852,  he  proposed 
that  the  convention  resolve  itself  into  an  association  for  the  promotion  of 
the  industrial  interests  of  the  Southern  and  Western  States  and  provide  for 
annual  meetings*  but  his  proposal  was  not  acted  upon.22  De  Bow  was  always 
considered  one  of  the  chief  authors  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention. 

IS.  IX,  256. 

20.  Loc . cit. 

21.  X 107. 

22.  Ibid.,  XII,  554,  561. 


. • 1 


• > 


• 

• 

. 

* 

• 

* X 

126 


C.  G.  Baylor,  Editor  of  the  Cotton  Plant,  a Baltimore  publication,  al30 
advocated  a convention  and  later  claimed  to  have  been  instrumental  in 

nO 

arranging  for  the  meeting  in  Baltimore  in  December,  1852. Finally,  a 

number  of  Southern  leaders,  chief  of  whom  was  Senator  William  C.  Dawson,  of 

Georgia,  who  thought  it  time  for  the  South  to  make  a concerted  effort  to 

achieve  commercial  and  industrial  independent e,  asked  Baltimore  business  men  to 

inaugurate  the  movement,  Baltimore  ms  chosen  because  3he  was  the  largest 

city  in  slave-holding  territory,  and  it  was  believed  her  name  would  lend 

prestige, 25  a call  was  issued  by  the  Baltimore  Board  of  Trade  for  a convention 

18 

to  meet  in  that  city  December*  1^52,  the  object  being,  as  stated  in  the  call, 

to  promote  foreign  and  interstate  trade, The  delegates  of  tne  Baltimore 

convention  were  carefully  selected  with  the  idea  of  avoiding  anything  a 

mass  meeting. 27  a number  of  congressmen  from  the  South  and  the  Ohio  Valley 

came  up  from  Washington,  Theother  delegates  were  mostly  business  men. 

Senator  Dawson  was  made  president.  Brarrtz  Mayer,  of  Baltimore,  read  in 

28 

behalf  of  the  Board  of  Trade  a carefully  prepared  address  of  welcome." 

23,  Richmond  Enquire^  Dec,  24,  1852;  Memphis  Daily  Appeal  Jan.  23,  1853, 

24,  DeBow  *3  Rev iew  XV;  New  York  Herald  April  15,  .1854;  New  urieans 
Qommerc  ial  Bullet  in,  Jan.  17,  1855. 

25,  Memphis  Daily  Appeal.  ^ une  23,  1853, 

26.  Baltimore  3un,Dec.  17,  1852;  DeBow  »s  'A&yi&v  Xlll,  426. 

27.  Baltimore  Sun. Dec,  17,  1852;  Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  24,  1852,  C.Q. 
Baylor  *3  remarks  in  the  convention. 

28.  Proceedings,  in  Baltimore  Sun,  Dec,  20,  1852/  Richmo nd_ ^n^,ujr.rer  , 

Dec.  24,  1852,  The  resolutions  and  Brantz  Mayer’s  addrsss  are  also  in 
DeBow  *s  Review.  XXV,  373-79. 


, 


I 


1 


< 


iVi 

He  described  the  advantages  of  Baltimore,  her  merchants,  her  manufacturers, 
her  banks,  and  her  facilities  for  direct  trade  with  Europe.  Tne  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad  was  about  completed  to  the  Ohio  River,  and  Baltimore  would  soon 
complete  with  New  York  and  Philadelphia  for  Western  trade.  The  delegates 
were  a33ured  that  Baltimore  wa3  a Southern  city,  devoted  to  the  Southern  cause, 
and  disposed  to  j oin  the  South  in  achieving  commercial  independence  of 
New  York,  Boston, and  Philadelphia.  The  way  to  achieve  commercial  independence 
wa3  to  make  3altimoi*e  the  commercial  and  financial  center  of  the  South.  The 
convention  endorsed  all  of  Baltimore's  aspirations*  The  orly  inc ident  which 
occurred  to  mar  the  harmony  of  the  proceedings  was  a remark  of  William  Burwell 
of  Virginia  that  he  considered  Norfolk  a better  port  than  Baltimore.  Some 
consideration  was  given  to  the  Pacific  Railroad,  for  whose  construction  ii> 
was  exceted  Congress  would  provide  in  the  session  just  beginning,  and  to  other 
important  internal  improvements  in  the  Southern  States*  A line  of  steamships 
to  Liverpool  was  recommended^  and  also  steam  c omm uni catron  'with  me  Amazon 
Valley.  The  convention  sought  to  justify  itself  against  the  c.narge  of 

sectionalism  by  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  while  we  disclaim  the  slightest  prejudice  or  hostility 
to  the  v/  el  fare  and  prosperity  of  any  particular  section  or  city,  North  or 
South,  we  would  promote,  as  we  think  we  reasonably  might,  consistent  with 
the  laws  of  trade,  its  great  central  position,  the  commercial  interests  and 
prosperity  of  Baltimore,  as  being  well  calculated  to  excite  a wholesome  ana 
beneficial  competition  with  more  Northern  Atlantic  cities,  whicn  could  not 
fail  to  be  particularly  advantageous  to  the  whole  Southland  .Vest,  and,  j.n 
fact,  to  the  Union  at  large."  sot/Wru/ey, 

The  convention  sat  but  one  day  and  adj  ourned  to  meet  in  Memphis  in 
June,  1*53.  The  proceedings  present  a striking  contrast  with  those  of  later 
conventions,  which  sat  from  four  to  six  days,  with  their  wranglings,  *iery 
declamation,  numerous  committees,  and  innumeraoie  resolutions. 

The  Baltimore  convention  did  not  give  universal  satisfaction.  The 
Richmond  inquirer  thought  the  address  of  welcome  made  too  many  illusions  to 


, 


J • '**  ’ 'I'"  * 


« 


' 


■ 


130 


Baltimore.  ’ Only  Lieutenant  Maury,  it  remarked,  remembered  that  there  was 
such  a place  ad  Virginia.  The  press  of  New  Orleans  thought  that  tne  movement 
had  been  got  up  by  Baltimore  to  catch  trade.  New  Orleans,  they  3aid,  was  a 
better  Southern  city  than  Baltimore,  and  it  was  wrong  for  Baltimore  to  try  to 
injure  New  Orleans  by  diverting  her  commerce.30  The  feeling  wa3  pretty  general 
that  the  Baltimore  3oard  of  Trade  had  attempted  to  turn  what  was  intended  for 
a Southern  movement  to  her  own  account.3^-  However, a begi nning  had  been  made. 

The  Memphis  convention  was  a somewhat  larger  body. 32  Delegates  were 
present  from  fourteen  states,  including  Mis  sour  i,  Kentucky,  Illinois,  and 
Indiana,  Thus,  like  the  Baltimore  gathering,  ix  wa3  not  strictly  Southern; 
in  fact,  each  was  officially  designated  the  "Southern  and  Western  Commercial 
Convention."  Like  the  Baltimore  convention,  also,  it  was  not  marked  by 
bitter  sectionalism.  Senator  Dawson  .again  presided,  and  several  other 
prominent  leaders  of  the  South  sat  among  the  delegates,  notably  Genera^ 

John  A,  Quitman  and  H.  S,  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  and  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee. 

The  objects  of  the  convention  had  not  yet  been  clearly  defined.  Upon 
taking  the  chair,  Senator  Dawson  stated  them  as  he  understood  them.  His 
statements  may  be  taken  as  the  expression  of  a moderate  leader  who  had  naa  a 

ihii't 

29.  Dec.  21,  1*52.  <5f*  jw*;  . ...  ",  1:  , April  14,  1354. 

30.  DeBow  *3  Review,  XVIII,  354;  Charleston  Courier,  Mar.  3,^13  54, 
quoting  the  New  Orleans  Delta;  Memphis  Eagle  and  Enquirer , June  io,  13  53, 
letter  from  G«  , Baylor,  editor  of  the  C otto n Plant , Baltimore;  Mempnis 
Daily  Appeal , June  23,  1353;  New  Orleans  Commerc ia  1 3ulle t in,  Jan.  •*,  13  55. 

31.  The  Baltimore  3un  of  Dec.  27,  1352,  quoted  a number  of  Southern 
papers  as  expressing  friendliness  to  Baltimore. 

32.  Four  hundred  ninety-six  delegates  were  present.  Proceedings,  in 
Proceedings  of  the  Southern  and  Western  Commercial  Convent  ion  at_  Lempnis , 
Tennessee^,  in  J une . 1853  (pamphlet,  64pp,  )»Cf.  Memphis  Daily  App eal , June  7* 

10,  20,  1853.  DeBow  >3  Review.  XV,  254-274;  Western  Journal  and  Civilian, 

X,  191*.  197. 


131 


considerable  part  in  the  inauguration  of  the  convention.  The  members  of  the 
convention  were  not,  he  said,  actuated  by  feelings  of  hostility  to  any 
section  of  the  Union;  but  it  had  been  seen  for  years  that  the  people  of  the 
Southern  arri  Western  States  wer e suffering  from  a want  of  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  the  natural  resources  of  their  section,  immediate  action  wa3  neces- 
sary. The  important  interests  of  agriculture,  commerce*  and  manufacture  were 
all  proper  subjects  for  discussion.  Better  transportation  facilities,  develop- 
ment of  seaports,  direct  trade,  lines  of  steamers  to  Europe  and  South  America, 
improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors,  encouragement  of  manufactures,  and,  finally, 

the  Pacific  Railroad,  Hthe  great  work  of  the  age  and  the  world,"  were  all 

• 33 

soecified  as  3U-bject3  which  deserved  the  cons  ideration  of  the  convention. 

This  statement  suggested  a wide  range  of  discussion;  the  convention  went 
even  beyond  it.  After  considerable  debate  resolutions  were  adopted  asning 
Congress  to  appropriate  money  to  improve  the  c hannels  of  the  moutn3  of  tne 
Mississippi  river,  the  De3  Moines  and  Rock  tiver  rapids,  and  tne  haroors  of 
Charleston,  Savannah,  Wilmington,  Norfolk,  Mobile,  and  Galveston,  Other 
resolutions  looked  to  aid  from  the  Federal  government  in  protecting  the  land3 
along  the  Mississippi  from  inundation.  Resoxutions  were  adopted  rej.at-s.v3  to 
direct  trade  and  steamship  communicat ion  with  Europe.  Provision  was  made  foi 
a committee  to  prepare  for  publication  and  distribution,  particularly  in  the 
manuf act uring  districts  of  Europe,  a full  report  on  the  peculiar  iacili-ies 
offered  by  the  South  and  West  for  the  manufacture  of  cotton.  The  convention 
resolved  that  Southern  youth  should  be  educated  at  home  rather  than  in  Northern 
schools*  Native  teachers  should  be  employed,  and  text  books  written  oy 
Southern  men  3hould  be  used.  The  state  governments  were  requested  to  consider 
the  establishment  of  normal  schools.  There  were  long  speeches  on  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Amazon  River  - a subject  which  Lieutenant  M,  F.  aury  had 
33;  De  BoW*  I?*  vie  XV,  2*'6  fF, 


, 


, 


. I 


' 


13fc 


been  agitating  for  a year  or  two.  The  projected  railroad  acor3s  the  Isthmus 
of  Tehuantepec  was  endorsed,  and  the  government  was  requested  to  hasten  the 
negotiations  with  Mexico  relative  to  the  rignt  of  way.  The  New  Orleans 
delegation  was  especially  interested  in  the  Tehuantepec  project.  A St.  i^ouis 
project  for  a Mississippi  Valley  railroad  from  New  Orleans  to  3t.  Paul  via 
St,  Louis  was  likewise  endorsed,  and  Congress  was  requested  to  grant  unsold 
lands  along  the  route  in  aid  thereof.  If  But  the  3Uoject  that  occupied  the  larg§3t 
share  of  the  time  and  interest  of  theconvent  ion  was  the  Pacific  cait- oaa. 

"This,"  said  the  NeW  Orleans  Delta  , "was  the  Aaron's  rod  that  swallowed  up 
all  others.  Thi3  i3  the  great  panacea,  which  i3  to  release  the  South  from 
its  bondage  to  the  North,  which  is  to  pour  untold  wealth  into  our  lap;  which 
is  to  build  up  cities,  steamships,  manufactories,  educate  our  children,  and 
draw  into  our  control  what  Mr.  Bell  calls  'the  untold  wealth  of  the  gorgeous 
East,  ' The  convention  unanimously  adopted  resolutions  which  declared 

the  road  a national  necessity  and  requested  Congress,  as  3oon  as  the  surveys 
of  routes  which  were  then  being  prosecuted  should  be  completed,  to  adopt  sucn 
measures  as  would  insure  the  construction  of  the  main  trunk  ax  the  eariiesc 
possible  period.  The  convention  refused  to  suggest  that  the  Federal  govern- 
ment construct  the  main  trunk;  but  it  did  declare  it  right,  expedient,  and 
proper  for  the  government  to  make  large  donations  of  the  public  lands  to  the 
different  states  bordering  on  either  side  of  the  Mississippi  to  enanle  all 
sections  to  connect  themselves  with  the  main  line  by  branches.  The  convention 

did  not  recommend  any  particular  route. 

The  third  session  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  was  held  in 
Charleston  in  April,  1854.  It  was  a much  larger  gathering  than  either  of  its 

34.  Quoted  with  approval  in  the  Richmond  hnquiror , June  24,  1353. 


133 


predecessors,35  Senator  Dawson  again  presided.  The  convention  Sat  six 
days.  The  debates  were  longer  and  covered  an  even  wider  range  of  subjects 
than  those  at  Memphis.  The  Pacific  Railroad  again  occupied  the  ceaitey  of  the 
stage;  but  such  subjects  as  direct  trade,  the  enc ourageme nt  of  manufacturing 
and  mining,  the  remission  of  duties  on  railroad  iron,  and  the  improvement  of 
rivers  and  harbors  were  discussed  at  some  length.  Among  the  other  topics 
which  received  c omsiderat  ion  were:  opening  the  Amazon  River  to  the  navigation 
of  the  world;  the  repeal  of  the  United  States  tonnage  duties  and  a ishing 
bounties;  the  admission  of  foreign  vessels  to  the  American  coasting  trade; 
direct  shipments  of  cotton  to  the  ports  of  Continental  Europe  - European 
manufacturers  purchased  their  stocks  in  Liverpool  usually  — J uniform  coinage 
cmong  the  nations  of  the  earth;  improved  mail  service  in  the  South;  milling 
and  lumbering;  agricultural  exhibits  and  institute  fairs;  and  education  in  the 
South.  The  tone  and  temper  of  the  gathering  were  unmistakable;  it  was  a 
Southern  convention  determined  to  find  some  means  of  advancing  the  interests 
of  the  South  a3  distinguished  from  the  North,  The  multiplicity  of  suojects 
pressed  upoji  it  for  attention  indicates  the  earnestness,  at  leasx,  of  many  of 
the  men  who  composed  it. 

Several  essays  were  made  to  define  the  objects  oi  the  Southern  Commer- 
cial Convention.  C.  K,  Marshall,  of  Mississippi,  offered  a resolution  to  the 
effect  that  while  commerce  was  the  subject  of  special  consideration  uO  uae 
convention,  other  m atters  tending  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  general 
design  of  the  development  of  the  rights  and  resources  of  tne  Southern  and 
Southwestern  states  were  legitimate  obj  ects?^  DeBow,  who  was  unabie  to  oe 
present,  wrote  to  the  committee  in  charge  of  arrangements  stating  ni3 


35,  It  was,  in  fact,  the  largest  of  the  whole  series.  There  were  present 
*57  delegates  from  13  states.  The' proceedings  are  in  the  Charleston  C£U£iei, 
April  11-14,17,1*,  1*54;  New  York  Herald,,  April  14  - 19  (taken  m part  from 
the  Courier^:  DeBow *3  Review.  XVI,  632-41;  XVII,  91-94,  200-213;  250-ol, 
39*-410,  491-510  (taken  from  Charleston  papers,  chiefly  from  the  courier. 
DeBow  »a  'Review.  XVII,  91).  3-6.  DeBow^  iCeview,  XVII,  92  t. 


* • 


. 


* 

« 


, - . ' . ",  • . 


134 


understanding  of  the  objects  of  the  convention.  He  emphasized  the  joint  that 
these  conventions  were  successors  of  the  direct  trade  conventions  of  «he  la^e 
thirties,  the  Memphis  conventions  of  1845  and  lr<49j  and  the  New  Orleans  rail- 
road convention  of  1852.  He  believed  these  conventions  had  contributed 
largely  to  the  great  development  which  had  been  exhibited  everywhere  throughout 
the  South  during  the  several  years  preceding.  Furthermore,  they  had  taugho 
the  South  to  see  and  feel  with  humiliation  her  dependence  upon  the  North,  nox 
only  in  industry  and  commerce  but  in  matters  not  of  a material  character.  A3 
he  saw  it,  the  task  which  lay  before  them  was  no  less  than  the  regeneration  of 
the  South, 3 *7  This  seems  to  have  been  the  view  also  of  gentlemen  who  addressee 
the  convention;  and  this  must  be  set  down  a3  the  prupose  of  the  Southern 

Commercial  Convention  when  at  its  best. 

The  lengthiest  debates  of  the  session  were  upon  a scheme  proposed  by 
Albert  Pike,  of  Arkansas,  for  building  the  Pacific  y.ailroad  along  a Southern 
route  without  aid  from  the  Federal  government.  The  legislature  of  Virginia 
was  called  upon  to  charter  a Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company  with  sufficient 
capital  to  build  the  road.  The  stock  was  to  be  subscribed  by  the  Southern 
states  and  by  California,  to  the  sum  of  $2,000,000  each,  by  cities,  by  private 
corporations,  and  by  individuals.  Texas  was  expected  to  make  a liberal  grant, 
of  public  land.  The  Cherokee,  Choctaw,  and  Creek  nations  were  to  be  invited 
to  join  the  enterprise.  The  board  of  directors  was  to  consist  of  an  equal 
number  from  each  state.  The  corporation  wa3  to  be  granted  power  by  i-* 
charter  to  negotiate  with  Mexico  for,  and  to  purchase  if  necessary,  ; ± 

of  way  through  her  territory  to  the  Pacific  or  the  Gulf  of  Calif  ornia;  and  to 

agree  that  the  company  would  maintain  military  posts  along  the  portion  of  tne 

38 

road  which  should  lie  in  Mexico, 

3?.  DeBcw’s  Review.  XVII,  9 5 ff.J  Charleston  Courier,  April  1C,  1854. 

38.  Resolutions  embodying  the  plan,  3uB-,v.  ’s  '•  - ■ » ’ 


' 


t 1 


\ 


* 


■ 


135 


This  extraordinary  plan  was  opposed  upon  the  floor  by  some  of  the  ablest 
and  most  practical  men  of  the  convention,  including  Senator  Dawson,  Lieuten- 
ant Maury,  Judge  Niabit,  of  Georgia,  Governor  J.  A.  Jones  ,of  Tennessee,  and 
N,  D.  Coleman,  of  Mississippi  - the  two  latter  being  railroad  men.  According 
to  these  men  the  plan  was  chimerical,  it  would  be  impracticable  to  unite 
the  Southern  states  upon  it,  it  would  disrupt  the  South,  it  wa3  too  sectional, 
it  savored  too  much  of  politics,  definitely  broke  with  the  , este  rn  spates, 
was  of  doubtful  constitutionality,  and  the  constitutions  of  several  states 
forbade  them  entering  any  such  corporation.  Yet  the  convention,  voting  by 
states,  unanimously  endorsed  Pike's  scheme.  Pike  wa3  a brilliant  orator  and 
presented  his  plan  in  a most  convincing  manner. ^ Some  support  may  have  been 
attracted  among  strict  construct ionalists  by  the  omission  of  any  demand  for 
Federal  aid.  But  the  chief  recommendation  of  the  plan  was  its  sectional  nature. 

Sectionalism  was  running(high  at  this  time.  The  Kansas- Nebraska  oij.1  was 
before  Congress,  A Pacific  railroad  bill  had  been  dexeated  in  the  o/iort  session 
of  the  thirty-second  Congress,  lft53,  largely  because  partisans  oi  a Southern 
route  feared  that  it  gave  some  advantage  to  the  North.  ^ Since  that  time 
partisans  of  the  several  proposed  routes  had  been  exerting  themselves  to  ^ne 
utmost  to  gain  some  advantage  in  the  struggle.  Surveys  made  In  lft53  under  the 
direction  of  Jefferson  Davis,  Secretary  of  War,  had  shown  that  the  best 
Southern  route  ran  3outh  of  the  Gila  River  in  Mexican  Terrivor,/.  e x j j-a-e 

in  the  same  year  the  Gadsden  Treaty  had  been  negotiated  with  Mexico,  securing, 
among  other  things,  the  desired  route.  While  the  Charleston  Convention  was 

39.  For  debate  a§e  fle  3sv<  ?•:'•  R^v  XVII,  2^5—13,  A.---"-  , •*  v 2-  o - 7 * 

40.  Tnis  statement  is  based  upon  an  unpublished  study,  made  by  the  autnor, 
of  the  struggles  in  Congress  over  the  Pacific  Railroad. 

41.  Reports  of  the  Explorations  and  Surveys,  to  Ascertain  the  Most  Prac- 
tical  and  Economical  Route  for  a Railroad  from  the  Mississippi  River  to.  tne. 
Pacif ic  Ocean,  i,  4,  29. 


' 


* 


■ 


‘ 


, 


* < 


* 


, . 


136 


sitting,  the  treaty  was  being  considered  by  the  Senate  in  3ocrat  session, 
and,  rumor  jjiad  it,  wa3  meeting  opposition,  which  was  attriouted  to  the 

A 

unwillingness  of  Northern  men  to  purchase  a Southern  route  to  the  Pacific.1*- 
General  Gadsden  himself  addressed  the  convention  in  favor  of  a resolution  in 
support  of  ratification  of  the  treaty,  and  in  favor  of  Pine's  plan. Albert 
Pile  took  strong  sectional  grounds  in  his  speech  in  support  of  the  resolutions 


embodying  his  plan.  He  invited  the  attention  of  the  convention  to  the  great 
Northwest,  which,  he  said,  never  seemed  to  be  taken  into  consideration  oy 
Southern  men.  This  region  was  bidding  for  immigration:  laws  granting  foreign 
immigrants  the  suffrage  before  they  had  declared  their  intention  of  becoming 
United  States  citisons  were  one  inducement,  the  proposed  homestead  legisla- 
tion was  another,  the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill  another.  The  North  was  increasing 
her  political  power  at  the  South's  expense.  "And  with  this  continued  increase 
in  foreign  and  Northern  influence  was  it  not  obvious  that  the  prospect  of  tne 
South  ever  getting  a Pacific  Railroad  was  put  further  and  f urtner  off  every 
year!"  The  North  was  looking  out  fr  her  own  interests,;  "tne  North  knew  full 
well  that  wherever  the  Pacific  Railroad  went,  there, too,  would  go  the  power 
and  wealth  of  the  country."  The  South  should  look  to  her  interests.  He 
wanted  the  plan  to  be  a "sort  of  declaration  of  independence  on  the  part  of 


the  South."44 

After  the  great  meeting  at  Charleston,  the  Souther  Commercial  convention 
languished  for  a couple  of  years.  The  session  in  New  Orleans  in  January,  IS 55, 

in  DeBow's  Review  XVli,  408-9;  letter  from  John  R.  Bartlett,  one  of  tne 

43*  ’ takins  umbrage  at  Gadsden’s  remarks  m tne 

Mexican  boundary  commissioners,  taking  um or age 

convention,  Charleston  Courier,  April  2*,  ivj1* 

yy.I  have  followed  the  synopsis  of  his  speec.ies  as  given  in 

XVif,  208-12,  499-506.  wh*h  PiL  prepared 

and  able  manner  in  a memorial  to  ^ne  s*a..e  ieg 

Ibid.  XVII,  593-99. 


137 


was  very  poorly  attended  and  attracted  little  attention  from  the  Soutn  ax 
large. 4 There  were  several  reasons  for  the  poor  showing.  The  //astern  . iv^rs 
were  low.  making  travel  difficult.  Congress  and  the  state  legislatures  were 
in  session.  The  country  was  suffering  somewhat  from  a temporary  financial 
stringency.45  The  presence  of  30  many  radicals  in  the  ^nalleston  convention  nai. 
discredited  the  movement  in  the  eyes  of  many  of  more  conservative  tendencies.*4  • 
But  the  chief  reason  for  the  poor  showing  made  wa3  the  attitude  of  the 
people  of  New  Orleans  and  vicinity.  The  city  council  took  tardy  action,  and 
the  committee  on  arrangements  did  little.  The  governor  of  Louisiana  neglected 
to  appoint  delegates.  Several  of  the  New  Orleans  newspfers  were  hostile, 
expressing  the  opinion  that  the  convention  had  been  decidedly  hostile  to 
New  Orleans  from  the  beginning.45  A specific  grievance  was  the  refusal  of 
the  Charleston  convention  to  adopt  resolutions  requesting  Congress  to  make 
appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 

On  the  other  hand  there  was  a feeling  throughout  the  South  that  the  people 
of  New  Orleans  were  only  luke-warm  for  the  Southern  cause,  ihis  feeling  of 
hostility  on  the  one  hand  and  distrust  on  the  other  found  expression  upon  whe 


45.  Two  hundred  twelve  delegates  from  twelve  states.  The  proceedings 
are  in  DeBew’s  Review.  XVIII,  353-60,  520-28,  623-35,  749-60;  New  Orleans 
Commerc  ial  Bullet  in  , Jan.  10-16,  18  55. 

46.  Charleston  Courier,  Jan,  13,  1855. 

47.  Savannah  Daily  Republican,  Nov.  17,  1856.  LeBowJs.  ^aview,  XV1H,  523. 
Senator  Eenton,of  Missouri,  had  denounced  ttae  "Chariest on  Convention  as  a 
disunion  convention  and  Pike’s  Plan  for  building  the  Pacific  Railroad  as  a 
plan  for  dissolving  th6  Union.  Ibid. , loc.  bit. 

48.  DeBow’s  Review,  XVIII,  353;  NeiB  Orleans  C ommerc  ial  Eullet  in,  Jan.  4, 
1855.  "This  feeling  of  indifference  and  apathy  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered 
at.  All  disclaimers  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  series  of  Southern 
Commercial  Conventions,  commencing  at  Baltimore,  and  continued  at  Memphis 
and  Charleston,  were  decidedly  antagonistic  to  the  interests  of  New  Orleans; 
and  this  inimical  tendency  was  more  than  once  exhibited  in  a manner  invidious- 
ly offensive  and  calculated  to  disturb  and  wound  one  amour  propre. " Ibid,, 

Jan.  17,  1855. 


49.  DeBow ’s  Review,  XVXXX,  628. 


t 


■ 





floor  of  the  convention,  and  visiting  delegates  left  with  the  feeling  that  the 
had  not  been  cordially  received.  50  The  session  at  Richmond,  Virginia, 
early  the  following  year,  1^56,  made  no  better  showing,  only  seven  states  beipg 
represented;  but  in  this  case  the  want  of  success  seems  to  nave  been 
largely  due  to  severe  weather  and  to  the  fact  that, the  meeting  having  been 
postponed  indefinitely  because  of  an  epidemic  of  small-pox  in  Richmond,  too 
short  notice  was  given  of  the  time  of  the  meeting. 52  The  chief  topic  .of- dis- 
cussion at  New  Orleans  was  the  Pacific  Railroad;  at  Richmond,  direct  trade. 

Most  of  the  ether  topics  discussed  at  previous  sessions  were  considered  in  a 
more  or  less  perfunctory  manner. 

The  Richmond  convention  determined  that  a greater  effort  than  theretofore 
should  be  made  to  insure  a large  attendance  at  the  next  meeting;  a committee 
was  appointed  to  address  the  Southern  people  in  its  behalf.  53  ^he  Savannah 
committee  on  preparations  worked  hard.  But  it  was  the  political  situation 
which  was  chiefly  responsible  for  the  large  attendance  at  Savannah;  The  con- 
vention met  in  December  1$56,  a month  after  the  exciting  presedential  cam- 
paign had  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  "Black  Republican"  party. 54 

The  fire  eating  element  in  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  had  been 
gradually  growing.  Several  members  of  the  committee  which  issued  the  call 
for  the  Savannah  convention  were  known  to  be  disunionists. ^ Many  friends  of 

50.  DeBow  *s  Review.  XVIII,  354,  624,  632,  634. 

51,  Proceedings,  in  DeBow  *s  Review,  XX,  340-54;  Richmond  Enquirer.  Jan.  31 
Feb,  1,  2,  4,  5,  1£56>  The  resolutions  are  in  Hunt's  Merchants  * Mag.  XXXIV, 392. 
There  were  213  delegates  present,  of  wrhom  1^3  were  from  Virginia. 

52,  DeBow  »s  Review/,  XX,  340. 

53.  DeBow  *3  Review,  XX,  351;  XX I,  550-552  (the  call). 

54,  Savannah  Republican,  Oct.  17,21,29,1^56.  There  were  564  delegates  from 
ten  states. 

55.  The  Savannah  Republican  thought  that, "aside  from  th6  known  character 
and  sentiment  of  the  men  who  compose  that  committee",  there  was  nothing  in  the 
call  that  cculd  be  tortured  into  a disunion  sentiment.  Nov.  17,1^56.  Tne  Repub- 
lican was  a Union  organ . 


1 


t 


139 

the  Union  had  come  to  look  upon  the  conventions  witp  distrust  and  branded  the 
Savannah  session  in  advance  a disunion  scheme.  The  city  council  of  Nash- 
ville, Tennessee,  for  example,  refused  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  convention, 
because  they  feared  its  disunion  proclivities.57  On  the  othexjhand,  the 
New  Orleans  Delta,  a journal  v/nich  had  been  antagonistic  when  the  dominant 
purpose  was  the  economic  regeneration  of  the  South,  gave  cordial  supoort  now 
that  the  objects  were  becoming  political.5*  The  convention  at  Savannah  was 
composed  largely  of  politicians,  and  a large  minority,  if  not  an  actual 
majority,  were  disunionists . 5“‘  James  Lyon,  of  Virginia,  upon  taking  the  chair, 
stated  the  objects  of  the  convention  a3  they  had  already  been  stated  several 
times,  He  defended  the  convention  against  the  cnarge  of  disunionism.  It  was 
commercial  and  not  political  independence  the  South  sought.  But,  in  a strain 
quite  common  in  that  day,  he  "looked  to  the  future,"  and  expressed  the  fear 
that  the  time  might  come  when  the  South  would  have  to  defend  her  rights.  For 
such  a time  it  behooved  her  to  be  strong  and  ready, DU 

The  convention  considered  rather  perfunctorily  the  subjects  discussed  at 
previous  sessions. Albert  Pike  was  again  able  to  secure  endorsement  of  his 

56,  The  Her ublican.  Dec.  1,  1356* 

57.  The  Republ  jean.  Nov,  25. 

53.  Quoted  in  the  Charleston  C ourier.  Nov.  6,  1356. 

59.  The  Savannah  Republican.  Dec,  16,  1356,  thought  the  convention  was 
by  large  odds  a "conservative  body"  butadm.itt e-d  the  presence  of  a consider- 
able numcer  of  disunionists,  A list  of  the  delegates  is  in  DeBow  *s  Review.  \xils 

82  ff. 

60.  Savannah  Republican.  Dec.  9,  1356;  DeBow  *s  Review.  XXII,  36-7, 

61.  Proceedings,  in  Of f ic ial  Rep ort  of  t ne  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  tne 
Southern  Comm  ere  ial  Convent  ion,  assembled  at  Knoxville,  Tennessee,  augusx 
10$, 1357.  Appendix:  "Proceedings  of  the  Southern  Convention  at  Savannan." 

Also  in  DeBow 's  Review,  XXII,  31-105,  216-247  307-18;  Savannan  Republican 

Dec.  9-13,  15,  1356;  Charleston  Courier.  Dec,  11-13. 


140 


plan  for  building  a railroad  to  the  Pacific.  A.  Dudley  Mann's  scheme  for 
establishing  a "steam  ferry"  between  the  Chesapeake  and  England  was  endorsee}, 
a3  was  also  Thomas  Rainey 's  project  for  a line  of  steamships  from  New  York  to 
LaljPlata  via  Savannah.  But  the  chief  interest  was  in  questions  more  political 
in  character.  Robert  Toomb3  addressed  a letter  to  the  convention  proposing 
that  the  state  legislature  encourage  direct  trade  by  levying  an  ad  valorem 
tax  upon  the  sale  of  all  goods  imported  into  their  respective  states  except 
goods  imported  directly  from  foreign  countries.  Such  a tax,  Toomfci  believed, 
would  not  only  enable  the  states  to  dispense  with  direct  taxation,  but  would 
also  provide  ample  revenue  to  carry  out  works  of  internal  improvement.'"’  Tne 
letter  was  referred  to  the  general  committee,  which  reported  not  Toombs*,?  plan, 
but  resolutions  in  favor  of  free  trade  and  direct  taxation  as  measures  best 
calculated  to  promote  direct  trade.  The  report  was  tabled  (by  a vote  of 
57-24),  but  the  subject  was  kept  alive  by  the  appointment  of  a committee  to 
report  upon  it  at  the  next  session.^3  ft  Res&utions  in  favor  of  reopening  the 

La 

African  slave  trade,  an  issue  raised  shortly  before,  were  introduced  and 
debated  at  length,  the  debate  turning  not  so  much  upon  the  propriety  of 
considering  such  a question  in  a commercial  convention  as  upon  the  expediency 
of  reopening  the  foreign  slave  trade.  This  question,  too,  was  carried  over  t-o 
tne  next  convention  by  the  appointment  of  a committee  to  report  at  the  next 

62.  DeBow’s  Review.  XXII,  102-104;  Charleston  Courier,  Dec.  15,  1856. 

The  plan  v/as  not  original  with  Toombs.  For  fuller  discussion,  see  below, 
Chapter  VI. 

63.  Proceedings  and  debate  in  DeBow *s  Rev iew.  XXIi,  ?2  f.,  307-18 

64.  The  question  ms  fairly  launched  by  Governor  Adams,  of  South 
Carolina,  in  his  message  to  the  legislature,  Nov.  24,  18  56.  ^narleston 
Courier,  Nov.  26. 


141 
A S 

meeting  of  the  convent  ion. 03  Resolutions  were  also  adopted  recommending 
organized  Southern-.  emigration  to  Kansas;  requesting  Southern  representatives 
in  Congress  to  inquire  whether  their  respective  states  had  received  their 
full  quota  of  the  public  arms,  and  to  insist  that  Southern  ports  be  properly 
fortified;  recommending  the  establishment  of  state  armories;  and  expressing 
sympathy  with  the  "efforts  being  made  to  introduce  civilization  in  tne  States 
of  Central  America,  and  to  develope  these  rich  and  productive  regions  by  the 
introduction  of  slave  labor  " - that  is,  with  the  Walker  filibusters. 

The  Southern  Commercial  Convention  had  now  reached  a stage  where  nothing 
could  be  expected  from  it  in  the  way  of  advancing  commerce  and  industry  in  the 
South,  The  committee  which  issued  the  call  for  the  succeeding  session  at 
Knoxville  styled  it,  rather  suggestively,  the  "Southern  Convection^'  and  declared 
its  purpose  to  be  to  unite  the  South  upon  a sectional  policy,  "Every  other 
purpose,"  said  the  committee,  "is  of  trifling  importance  in  comparison  with  the 
high  moral  and  social  objects  of  the  Convention.  They  are  intended  to  spread 
far  and  wide,  correct,  enlarged,  and  faithful  views  of  our  rights  and  obliga- 
tions, and  to  unite  us  together  by  the  most  sacred  bonds  to  maintain  them 
inviolate  for  ourselves  and  our  posterity."'  'At  Knoxville,  in  August,  Is! 57,^ 

J.  D,  B.  DeBow,  already  an  avowed  disunionist,  was  made  president  and  opened 
the  convention  with  a ringing  disunion  speech.  He  admitted  that  tne  conven- 
tion had  built  no  railroads  and  established  no  steamship  lines;  but  it  had 

65.  DeBow 's  Review,  XXII,  216-224  (summary  of  the  debate). 

66.  laid..  XXII,  96-102  (resolutions  of  the  convention  in  full;. 

67.  Ibid.,  XXIII,  193. 

6^.  Proceedings,  in  Official  Report  of.  the,  Debates  and  Proceedings,  of,  the. 
Southern  Commercial  C onventi o n,  assembled  at  Knoxville,  xennessee,  August , 
iTofc.  jftb7/;"  DeBow 's  ~ Review,  XXIII.  29S-320;  Hew  York  Herald,  17,1'  ,19  Coest 
report There  were  710  delegates  from  eleven  states  and  Arizona  territci,,. 


Ik  1 


142 


caused  the  people  of  the  South  to  understand  the  importance  of  all  tnose 

things,  and  they  would  come  in  the  fullness  of  time,  It  had  taught  the 

people  that  the  South  had  rights  a thousand  times  more  valuable  than  the 

Union;  and  that  she  had  resources  sufficient  to  mane  her  important  in  the 

6b 

Union  or  to  enable  her  to  maintain  herself  as  an  independent  nation. 

Resolutions  in  regard  to  reopening  the  foreign  slave  trade  were  introduced 
and  debated  at  great  length.  By  a scale  vote  of  66  to  26  a resolution  was 
adopted  which  put  the  convention  on  record  in  favor  of  the  amullment  of  that 
article  of  the  Webster- Ashburton  treaty,  ratified  November  10,  1*42,  which 
provided  for  keeping  a squadron  of  naval  vessels  oif  the  coast  of  Africa  for 
the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  slave  trade.  An  amendment  offered  by  a 
Tennessee  delegate  declaring  it  "inexpedient  and  contrary  to  tne  settled  pol- 
icy of  this  country  to  repeal  the  laws  prohibitory  of  the  African  slave  trade' 
was  defeated  by  a vote  of  40  for,  52  against.70  The  amendment  was  almost 
identical  in  language  with  a resolution  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, December  15,  1*56,  by  James  L.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  and  adopted 

with  only  eight  dissenting  votes,71  One  delegate  breached  the  subject  of  free 

72 

immigration,  but  it  was  not  met  with  favor  among  the  body  of  delegate?*  ~ ^ 
was,  of  course,  a much  more  practical  subject.  Another  long  debate  occurred 
upon  the  resolution,  offered  by  W.  W,  Boyce,  of  South  Carolina,  declaring 
that  the  system  of  duties  on  imports  snould  be  abandoned  oy  xhe  lectral 
government  and  direct  taxation  be  resorted  to  exclusively.'-  Whatever  tne 

65.  DeBow's  Review,  XXIII,  225-38;  Richmond  inquirer,  Aug.  17,  1*57. 

70,  DeBow's  Review.  XXIII,  305-10;  New  York  Herald,  Aug.  18. 

71,  Ibid.,  Aug.  IS;  Cong,  Globe,  34  v-'ong.,  3 oess,,  125-126. 

72,  New  York  Herald,  Aug.  15;  DeBow's  Review,  XXIII,  31* 


73.  Ibid.,  XXIII,  313  ff. 


. 


< 


* 


. . 


143 

merits  of  the  absolute  free  trade,  its  establishment  in  the  Union  was  about 

74 

as  impossible  as  was  reopening  the  foreign  slave  trade. 

It  is  true,  the  former  objects  of  the  convention  were  not  completely  lost 
sight  of.  A.  Dudley  Mann’s  scheme  for  establishing  a steamship  line  between 
Chesapeaxe  Bay  and  Milford  Haven  was  debated  and  endorsement  defeated,  prob- 

r?  c 

ably  at  the  instigation  of  friends  of  rival  Virginia  projects.' J A resolution 
was  adopted  recommending  the  extension  of  state  aid  to  3teamsnip  lines  be- 
tween Southern  and  foreign  ports.  The  Federal  government  Sras  requested  to 
grant  to  Southern  steamsnip  lines  the  same  subsidies  for  carrying  the  mails  a3 
it  granted  to  Northern  lines.  The  convention  recommended  patronage  of  home 
manufactories,  and  of  merchants  who  imported  directly  from  foreign  countries. 
Resolutions  were  adopted  asking  the  Federal  government  to  fortify  tne  haroors 
of  Port  Royal,  South  Carolina,  Mobile,  Alabama  and  Beaufort,  North  Carolina, 
and  make  them  coaling  stations  for  large  government  steamers.  A resolution 
recommending  taxation  by  the  Southern  states  upon  sales  within  xhe  respective 
states  of  articles  manufactured  in  the  North  wa3  rejected.  A committee  was 

appointed  to  memorialize  Congress  upon  the  subject  of  duties  imposed  by 

76 

foreign  countries  upon  American  tobacco;  the  duties  impo3ea  by  3ome 
countries  were  very  high  and  it  was  felt  that  the  American  government  had  not 
made  thd  effort  it  might  have  made  to  secure  their  reduction.  The  Pacific 
failroad  was  not  mentioned.  There  were  the  usual  resolutions  relative  to 
Southern  education.  The  disposition  to  call  for  Federal  aid  for  various 

74.  The  convention  was  not  of  a practical  bent,  A good  part  of  two 
days  was  3pent  debating  a resolution  to  exclude  reporters  of  Northern  News- 
papers. New  York  Herald.  Aug,  17,  1$57. 

75.  Ibid.,  Aug.  17;  DeBow’s  Review.  306,  30$. 

76.  The  memorial  is  in  ibid. . XXIV,  291-99 


- 


. 


. - 


- 


« 


144 


purposes  is  notev/orthy. 

In  the  earlier  sessions  of  the  Commercial  Convent  ion,  there  had  been  a 
sprinkling  of  public  men  of  more  than  local  prominence,  and,  of  course,  a 
larger  number  of  local  politicians.  The  majority  of  the  delegates  carne  from 
towns  and  cities,  but  the  planters  had  been  well  represented.  In  the  earlier 
meetings,  too,  as  in  the  later,  there  were  editors,  preachers,  physicians,  and  - 
professors.  But  there  was  a large  number  of  business  men,  bankers,  merchants, 
a few  manufacturers,  and  men  interested  in  promoting  particular  railroad  pro- 
jects, steamship  lines,  or  other  enterprises,  for  which  they  hoped  to  secure 
the  endorsement  of  the  convention.  By  the  time'1  of  the  Knoxville  convention 
this  latter  element  had  practically  ceased  to  attend.  After  the  Knoxville 
meeting  the  dwindling  conservative  element  also  disappeared  from  the  conven- 
tion; and  it  fell  everywhere  into  disrepute  except  among  the  d isunionists,  who 
continued  to  hope  that  it  would  sefve  some  useful  purpose  in  making  Southern 

men  acquainted  with  each  other,  in  consolidating  Southern  feeling,  and  in 

77 

harmonizing  differences  between  different  quarters  of  the  ooutn. 

The  Montgomery  convention,  May,  1858,  was  well  attendee.  The  debates, 
as  far  as  oratory  was  concerned,  were  more  brilliant  than  those  of  any  other 
convention  of  the  series.  Among  the  craters  were  Henry  W.  Hilliard  and 

170 

William  L,  Ygnce^  of  Alabama,  rivals  of  long  standing. 

77.  Address  of  the  committee  which  called  the  Montgomery  convention. 
Charleston  Mercury , April  8,  1^58;  DeBow *3  Review,  XXXV,  424—28.  me  XJ •**•* 
ville  (Tenn. ) Citizen  though  t the  call  "an  invitation  to  take  counsel  whether 
the  Union  can  be  longer  maintained  ofi  is  worth  maintaining. " Quoted  in  Charles- 
ton  Mercury.  April  20,  18b*. 

78.  About  delegates  were  present  from  ten  states.  Proceedings,  in 

DeBow ’s  Review.  XXIV,  574-606;  Montgomery  Daily  Confederation,  May  11-15, lf<5*  - 

79.  Yancey's  part  in  the  convention  is  discussed  at  lengtn  in  DuBose, 

The  Life  and  Times  of  Will  jam  Lowndes  Yancey.  358  ff.  Cf.  Ruff  in7s  Di&r^, 
entry  for  May  13,  18  58;  DeBow  *s  Rev  iew , XXIV,  583—88 


145 


it.  was  not  a commercial  convention;  it  was  a gathering  ot  disunion- 

ists.  The  Montgomery  Daily  Confederation  said*.  "Every  form  and  shape  of 

political  malcontent  was  there  present,  ready  to  assent  in  any  project  having 

Ho 

for  its  end  a dissolution  of  the  Union,  immediate,  unconditional,  final," 

Edmund  Ruffin,  of  Virginia,  himself  an  ardent  secessionist,  found  only  two 

Hi 

delegates,  outside  the  Virginia  delegation,  who  were  not  disunionist3.  but 
the  proceedings  took  a turn  which  all  secessionists  even,  could  not  approve. 
Practically  the  whole  time  of  the  convention  was  devoted  to  debating  the 
question  of  reopening  the  African  slave  trade*  ihe  debate  proven  tne  delega.es 
to  be  hopelessly  divided,  not  only  upon  the  expediency  of  reopening  the  foreign 
slave  trade,  but  also  upon  the  more  practical  question,  whether  or  not  agita- 
tion for  the  repeal  of  Federal  laws  prohibitory  of  the  slave  trade  would 
promote  or  injure  the  cause  of  disunion,  Ridiculed  both  in  a North  anc^South,  ‘C ^ 

HO,  May  1$,  1858.  "When  the  South  gets  ready  to  dissolve  the  Union,  all 
she  ha3  to  do  is  to  reassemble  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  which  met  ax 
Montgomery  and  give  the  word."  Milledgeville  (Georgia)  Federal  Union  .quoted 
in  the  New  Orleans  Picayune,  May  25,  1858.  A.  P.  Calhoun,  son  of  John  ^ . Cal- 
houn, and  a disunionist  per  se  was  president. 

81.  Ruffin *a  Diary,  May  11,  1858. 

82.  Charleston  Mercury , May  15,  1858.  The  press  of  South  Carolina  was 
almost  unanimous  in  recommending  that  delegates  oe  seni  to  Montgomery,  tn inn- 
ing tne  effect  would  be  to  harmonize  and  consolidate  the  South.  Whea,  however, 
the  introduction  of  tne  slave  trade  question  served  only  to  sow  3eeds  of  dis- 
sension, the  press  of  the  state  very  generally  condemned  it.  Camden,  3.C.  ; 
Journal,  quoted  in  the  Mont  gome  ry  Daily  Confederation,  May  15,  lw58.  Edmund 
Ruffin  was  very  much  disappointed  at  the  turn  the  convention  ooon,  xnougn  ne 
saw  redeeming  features.  Diary,  May  11-1 c,  I "55. 

83.  "Was  there  ever  sucn  another  gathering^  all  this  world  as  tne 
Vicksburg  fire  eaters’  convention?  Let  Garrison  and  his  motley  crew  of  old 
women  in  breeches,  and  would-be-men  in  petticoats  retire  from  the  i ield. 

They  are  tame,  flat  and  stupid  compared  with  these  fiery,  fussy,  oelligerent 
and  terrible  Southern  salamanders,"  New  York  Herald,  May  18,  18 cv. 


146 


denounced  by  1 be  Union  element  in  the  South,  and  distrusted  by  the  cooler 
headed  disunionists,  ^ the  Vicksburg  meeting,  in  May,  1859,  was  able  to  summon 
only  a corporal’s  guard,  chiefly  of  the  more  radical  type  of  disunionists. 

For  five  days  this  rump  convention  indulged  in  heated  debate  upon  the  great 
quest i cns^c onf rent ing  the  South,  particularly  the  reopening  of  the  African 
slave  trade,  adopted  a string  of  resolutions  as  long  as  those  of  its  pre- 

£ c 

dec633or3,  and  adjourned  to  meet  again  at  the  call  of  the  president.  - Chat 
gentleman  cnose  not  to  issue  the  call;  and,  thus,  rather  mgloriously,  the 
Southern  Commeraial  Convention  came  to  an  end. 

There  were  reasons  for  the  cnange  in  the  character  of  the  personnel  and 
the  perversion  of  purpose  of  the  Southern  Conimercial  convention  otner  tnan  the 
growing  intensity  of  the  sectional  struggle  and  the  aggressiveness  Ci  the 
disunion  elements. 

With  the  exception  of  the  one  at  Baltimore,  these  assemblies  were  prac- 
tically mass  meetings.  The  task  of  insuring  a large  attendance  was,  in  the 
majority  of  instances,  left  to  a committee  of  the  city  council  or  ooaro  of 
trade  of  the  city  in  which  the  convention  was  to  convene.  Delegates  were 
appointed  by  governors,  mayors,  city  councils,  boards  of  trade,  and  meetings 
of  citizens,  in  making  their  selections,  they  were  governed  soiely  by  tnexx- 
own  judgment;  for  no  qualifications  for  membership  were  prescribed.  Distinguished 
individuals  were  sometimes  invited  by  the  local  committee;  ana  a general  invix^- 
tion  was  always  extended  to  editors.  Not  a tenth  part  of  those  designated  &.3 

fi4.  When  Georgia  and  Alabama  refused  to  appoint  delegates  the  Montgomery 
Daily  C onfederat ion  remarked:  "These  Southern  Commercial  Conventions  ha\e 
run  their  course  and  we  3hall  hear  no  more  of  them  forever."  May  14,  1-  39. 

*5.  Proceedings,  in  New  York  Herald,  May  1ft,  21;  DeBow 's  . Review^  XXVI, 

713;  XXVII,  94-103;  205-20;  360-64;  468-71  (taken  largely  'from  the  New  York 
Herald). 


147 


delegates  attended.  Ho  one  participated  in  the  proceedings  who  had  not  been 
certified  as  a delegate;86  but,  it  is  evident,  anyone  vfoo  desired  to  attend 
could  readily  secure  the  necessary  credentials.  Thus,  there  was  nothing  in  the 
organization  of  the  convention  to  present  a change  in  the  character  of  the  per- 
sonnel. 

V/hen  the  convention  failed  to  produce  the  results  which  its  founders  hoped 
for  it,  many  of  its  early  patrons  confessed  it  a failure  and  ceased  to  attend 
it.  This  failure  w7as  due  in  large  part  to  the  inherent  limitations  of  a conven- 
tion as  a means  of  effecting  a revolution  in  commerce  and  industry.  It  was 
unreasonable  to  expect,  as  many  seem  to  have  expected,  a convention  to  build 
railroads,  establish  steamship  lines,  erect  cotton  factories,  or  open  mines. 
Humerous  examples  can  be  cited  of  individual  local  conventions,  particularly 
railroad  conventions,  held  during  the  decades  preceding  the  Civil  7/ar,  which 
aided  greatly  in  crystallizing  the  sentiment  of  their  respective  communities  in 
favor  of  particular  railroad  or  other  projects,  and  in  securing  suoscriptions 
to  the  capital  stock.  A few  might  be  mentioned  vshich  powerfully  influenced  a 
city  or  state  to  embark  upon  an  internal  improvements  program.  But  a convention 
representative  of  many  so  widely  separated  communities  and  so  many  conflicting 
interests  as  was  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  could  not  be  expected  to 
accomplish  anything  so  tangible  in  character.  Hie  convention  failed  largely, 
however,  to  accomplish  what  it  might  legitimately  have  been  expected  to  accom- 
plish. 

The  meetings  were  not  well  managed.  Ho  programs  were  made  before  con- 
vening, and  no  efforts  were  made  to  have  subjects  presented  by  those  oest 

86.  However,  the  conventions  sometimes  invited  distinguished  visitors 
present  to  participate  in  the  proceedings  as  delegates. 


■ 

} 


148 


prepared  to  discuss  them.  There  was  no  steering  committee.  The  rules  of  the 
house  of  Hepresentat ives  were  followed;  the  chair  recognized  the  first  to 
claim  the  floor,  and  debate  was  rarely  limited.  The  most  fluent  orators  were 
able  to  monopolize  the  time  of  tne  convention  to  the  exclusion  of  practical 
business  men,  whose  counsels  might  have  been  more  worth  ’mile.  As  the  objects 
of  the  convention  were  not  strictly  defined,  anyone  with  a hooby  could  secure 
a hearing.  Too  large  a part  of  the  time  was  spent  in  discussing  panaceas, 
magnificent  schemes  like  tne  Pacific  Railroad  or  the  navigation  of  the 
Amazon.  Things  of  just  as  great  importance  but  appealing  less  to  the  imagina- 
tion, such  as  geological  surveys,  banking  facilities,  boards  of  trade,  adver- 
tising, encouragement  of  homejindusiry  by  correction  oi  tne  irregularities  o» 
taxation  systems  or  by  bounties,  Were  not  taken  up  in  real  earnest*  Immigra 
tion,  except  of  negro  slaves,  was  not  discussed.  No  considerate n was  given 
the  possibility  of  utilizing  the  poor  wnite  population  in  productive  industry. 


No  invitations  were  3ent  to  foreign  capitalists. 


Great  faith  wa3  put  in  the  efficacy  of  resolutions.  All  resolutions 
introduced  were  referred  to  a general  committee  composed  of  a number  of 
delegates  from  each  state,  from  which  they  were  reported  after  due  considera- 
tion to  be -acted  upon  by  the  whole  convention.  Resolutions  deemed  important 


were  debated  at  length,  and  the  voting  thereon  would  not  have  been  watened 
more  jealously  had  the  convention  been  a legislative  body  framing  tne  laws  oi 
the  land. Said  the  New  York  Tribune:  "The  people  of  the  South  have  been 


ft7.  Voting  was  by  states.  In  some  of  the  conventions  (Memphis  and 
Charleston)  each  state  was  allowed  one  vote,  in  others  a number  equal  to  the 
state  representat  ion  in  Congress.  This  system  nad  3ome  incongruous  result 3. 
often  one  or  two  delegates  from  a poorly  represented  state  cast  -he 
vote  of  the  state,  and,  thus,  had  as  much  to  do  with  determining  tne  o^ic  re- 
action of  the  convention  a3  a hundred  delegates  from  another  state. 


. 


« 


149 


meeting  year  after  year  and  resolving  that  Charleston  and  Norfolk  3ha^l 
become  great  cities,  wnich  obstinately  tney  refuse  to  do."'  The  convention 
mignt  have  been  employed  to  better  advantage  had  it  collected  useful  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  economic  conditions  in  the  Southern  states  and  disseminated 
it.  Such  a work  would  at  least  have  contributed  to  a better  underst anding  of 
the  causes  for  the  backwardness  of  the  South  - a useful  preliminary  to  a 
prescription  of  the  remedies.  The  convention  left  no  reports  or  publications, 
however,  comparable  even  to  the  reports  and  addresses  of  McDuffie,  Hayne, 
Longstreet,  and  Mallory  of  the  direct  trade  conventions  of  1837-1839.  This 
was  due  to  the  disinclination  of  individuals  to  contribute  anything,  except 
speeches  and  resolutions,  to  make  the  convention  a success* 

Time  and  again  reces3  committees  were  appointed  to  investigate  and 
report,  to  memorialize  Congress  or  the  3tate  legislature}”,  and  foi  other 
purposes.  With  a few  exceptions  they  failed  to  do  the  work  assigned  them,* 

At  Memphis  an  able  committee  wa3  named  to  prepare  tor  publication  ana  distribu- 
tion, especially  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of  Europe,  a full  rep  or  u oi  tne 
peculiar  facilities  offered  by  the  Southern  ana  Western  states  for  the  manufac- 
ture of  cotton.  Thi3  was  a very  worth-while  task.  The  committee  was  not 
supported  in  its  labors,  however,  and  there  is  no  record  that  it  made  any 
report.  The  Charleston  convention  appointed  a committee  of  three  from  each 
state  to  gather  statistics  and  other  information  on  mining,  manufacturing, 
lumbering,  milling,  internal  impr ovements , and  capacities  ^or  trade  ana 

88.  Reprint,  , The  North  and  yhe  South.  18  54.  Also  quoted  in  Charleston 
Courier.  April  24.  1854.  "Much  time  is  consumed  in  talking,  and  most  scrupu- 
lous attention  is  paid  to  punctilio  and  the  rules  of  debate  .....  out  as  soon 
as  the  fiat  of  the  convention  has  gone  forth,  the  members  seem  to  thinx  that 
their  task  i3  complete." 

89.  DeBow  *s  Review,  XV,  2o8,  432. 


150 


commerce  in  the  South,  to  addre:-3  the  people,  urge  the  legislature* t o action 

in  favor  of  education,  manuf acturxng,  shipbuilding,  direct  trade,  and  raining, 

and  report  to  the  next  convention.  The  committee  was  divided  into  five 

sub- committee s with  able  chairmen.  This  committee,  notwithstanding  the 

immensity  of  the  task  imposed  upon  it,  might  have  performed  a useful  service 

had  it  gone  intelligently  to  work.  At  the  succeeding  convention  four  of  the 

sub-committees  had  no  report  whatever,  and  the  c nairman  of  the  fifth  trans- 

91 

mitted  certain  documents  and  a letter  relative  to  his  duties.  Naturally 
this  failure  to  take  seriously  the  work  assigned  the  committees  tended  to 
persuade  practical  men  that  no  good  could  come  from  these  meetings.  But  it 
car. not  be  expected,”  said  one  delegate,  "that  a commercial  convention  can 
produce  any  useful  result  when  committees  appointed  by  it  pay  no  attention  to 

C p 

subjects  committed  to  them,  after  adj  ournment  '• 

In  the  earlier  sessions  of  the  convention  an  apparently  honest 
attempt  was  made  to  keep  party  politics  out  of  the  proceedings.  It  proved 
■well  nigh  impossible  to  do  30.  Politics  played  a very  large  part-  in  ne  lif a 
of  the  South;  from  the  very  first  many  of  the  delegates  were  politicians,  and 
many  of  the  matters  which  legitimately  came  before  the  convention  had  become 
party  questions.  Whig  and  Democratic  members  of  the  convention  watched  memQe.s 
Of  the  opposite  political  faith  closely  to  see  that  they  did  net  attempt  t^o* 
make' polit ical  capital  from  the  action  of  the  convention.  The  more  partisan 
journals  approved  or  disapporoved  tne  convention  according  a3  tnei.  party  oi 

SO,  DeBow's  Review,  XVI  , 635;  XVII,  325* 

91.  Ibid,.  XVIII,  357. 

S2.  Ibid. , XVIII,  523,  remarks  of  Albert  Pike. 


151 


C o 

thd  opposition  party  could  better  capitalize  it3  proceedings,  At  Memphis 
a political  debate  over  resolutions  calling  upon  the  Federal  government  to 
appropriate  money  for  the  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors  was  avoided  with 
difficulty, 15)4  The  opponents  of  Federal  aid  to  internal  improvements,  led  by 
General  John  A.  Quitman,  forced  the  omission  from  the  resolutions  on  a Pacific 
railroad  of  a clause  calling  upon  the  government  to  build  the  main  trunk,  - ^ 

At  Charleston  the  same  questions  were  fought  over.  It  was  evident  that  a 
large  majority  were  willing  to  ask  the  government  to  improve  rivers  and 
harbors,^0  A Louisiana  delegate  threatened  to  speak  all  week  before  he  would 
see  the  convention  turned  into  a YYhig  meeting.  Governor  Chapman,  of  Alabama, 
served  notice  that  the  next  convention  would  see  few  delegates  .irom  Democratic 
Alabama  if  the  resolution  were  passed,  A Georgia  Whig  appealed  to  tne  convention 

Q f7 

to  keep  out  party  questions,  and  the  resolution  was  withdrawn,'  Thejiniro- 
duction  of  party  politics  discredited  the  convention  in  the  eyes  of  many  who 

had  honed  that  3ome  real  good  would  flow  from  it  in  the  way  of  promoting  the. 

% 

material  prosperity  of  the  South, 

Defenders  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  admitted  the  justice  ^f 
many  of  the  criticisms  made  of  it  both  at  home  and  in  the  North,  They  3ometime3 
countered,  however,  with  the  complaint  tnat  the  fault  lay  in  xhe  failure  of 
Congress  and  the  state  legislatures  to  act  upon  the  convention’s  recommends.- 
t ion3 , And,  with  a very  few  exceptions,  it  wouldbe  impossible  ^0  nar.s  any 
concrete  suggestions  which  were  acted  upon.  This  defense  overlooxs  the  fact  that 

93,  Before  the  Charleston  convention  me^,the  Richmond  inquirer  believed 
it  would  be  composed  of  able  and  practical  men  and  confidently  hoped  iu  would 
take  action  towards  securing  Southern  commercial  independence.  But  some  tu  tne 
views  there  expressed  were  too  "federal"  to  harmonize  with  the  Enquirer — 3 
strict  construction  principles  and  the  convention  was  described  a3  "an  abortion 
if  not  something  worse,"  April  4,  14,  21,  1*54.  Two  years  later  the  A^ir^v 
was  again  the  champion  of  the  convention,  Jan,  2J,  oj.,1^5o« 

94.  DeBow's  Review,  XV,  265.  95,  laid.,  XV,  254  ff,  267,  270  f. 

96.  Ibid.,  XVII,  261,  97.  DeBow’s  Review,  XVII,  400;  New  York  Herald 

April  19,  1354, 


. \ 

. 


' 


152 


the  convention  might  have  served  the  cause  in  other  ways  than  throu^i  recommen- 
dations to  legislative  bodies;  in  fact,  it  is  questionable  how  far  the  economic 
development  of  the  South  could  have  been  promoted  by  legislation.  But  this 
aside.  It  was  one  of  the  inherent  limitations  of  the  convention  that  it  could 
not  legislate,  but  only  recommend  legislation.  No  doubt  action  by  the  state 
legislatures  or  by  Congress  in  accordance  with  many  of  the  recommendations  of 
the  convention  would  have  greatly  bonefitted  the  South.  On  the  other  hand  the 
recommendations  were  not  always  well-advised,  were  often  indefinite,  and, in 
general, were  not  pressed  upon  the  state  legislatures  and  Congress  with  vigor. 

Defenders  of  the  convention  claimed  for  it  important  results  in  the  way  of 

creating  public  sentiment  and  educating  the  public  in  regard  to  its  objects. 

It  had  aroused  the  public  mind,  they  said,  to  the  need  of  diversifying  industry, 

fostering  commerce,  and  developing  the  South’s  natural  resources.  It  had  been 

the  means  of  disseminating  useful  information,  teaching  the  South  the  extent  of 

their  resources,  and  pointing  the  way  to  their  utilization.  These  claims  are 

true  to  a degree.  Perhaps  the  judgment  of  the  New  Orleans  Picayune  was  aS 

fair  and  as  near  the  mark  as  could  be  made.  When  the  movement  was  initiated, 

it  said,  practical  men  had  hoped  that  at  last  the  public  would  be  aroused.  To 

some  extent  this  hope  had  been  realized.  The  importance  of  commercial  enterprise 

had  been  impressed  upon  the  public  mind.  The  necessity  of  manufacturing 

industry  to  local  independence  was  generally  acknowledged.  The  certainty  of  the 

ultimate  growth  and  importance  of  Southern  seaports,  aided  oy  the  completion  of 

projected  internal  improvements,  was  perceived.  These  results  were  due  in  part 

98 

to  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention. 

Men  of  the  disunionist  faction  vhich  had  dominated  the  later  sessions 


98.  May  20,  1858. 


. 

i 

_ 

♦ 


■ 

' 

. 

. 

• 

• • ' • 


. . 


153 


of  "the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  claimed  that  the  convention  had  aeon 
a potent  means  of  uniting  the  South,  conaolidat ing  public  opinion,  an.*  prepar- 
ing the  people  for  the  crisis.  It  had  made  Southern  men  more  extensively 
acquainted  with  each  other,  and  had  shown  that, while  they  might  disagree 
as  to  measures,  they  were  one  in  purpose.  The  convention  had  also  taugnx  tne 
people  that  the  South  nad  resources  sufficient  to  maintain  herself  as  an 
independent  nation.  According  to  the  Charleston  Kercur^  one  result  of  the 
convention  was  a knowledge  that  nothing  could  be  done  in  tne  Union  to  change 
the  course  of  Southern  commerce;  and  "To  know  our  c ondit  ion,  is  the  first  great 
requisite  for  altering  it."*9  These  claims  may  be  admitted  with  qualifications, 
"he  meetings  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  no  doubt  contributed  to  tne 
spread  of  disunion  sentiment;  but  it  was  through  declamation  rather  than 
argument.  They  were  conducive  to  passion  and  resentment  rather  than  clear 
thinking  and  sound  judgment.  While  tney  brought  men  from  widely  separate 


states  together  in  a common  cause,  they  also  exposed  to  view  the  diw  is  ions  in 
Southern  opinion,  the  discordant  elements,  the  local,  jealousies,  ana  xne 
inability  of  too  many  Southern  men  to  ri3©  above  petty  politics.  Finally, 
countenanced  the  agitation  of  a question,  the  reopening  of  the  foreign  slave 
trade,  wnich  bade  fair  to  wreck  the  disunion  cause  altogether.  The  Soutnern 
Commercial  Convention  did  not  tend  to  put  the  disunion  cause  upon  a high  plane. 

Perhaps  tne  chief  significance  of  the  Soutnern  Commercial  Convention  for 
the  student  of  the  period  lies  in  the  fact  that  a convention  professing  xne 
purpose  which  it  did,  met  year  after  year,  attracted  a considerable  degree  of 
interest,  and,  as  long  as  it  retained  its  original  pur  pose  of  regenerating  tne 
South,  commanded  the  good  will  of  a great  majority  of  the  Southern  people. 


99.  May  16,  1858. 


CHAPTER  VI 


Attitude  of  the  Southern  People  toward  Protective 
Tariffs  and.  State  and  Local  Ileus  urea  to 
Enc  ourage  Industry.  1340-1360 

The  attitude  of  the  South  upon  the  tariff  was  determined  in  the  main 
by  the  dominant  economic  interests  of  the  section*  The  South  was  practically 
unanimous  in  opposition  to  the  Tariff  of  1323.  One  state  went  to  the  extreme 
of  declaring  it  and  tne  amendments  of  1832  null  and  void*  There  was  much  . 
sympathy  with  this  action  in  other  Southern  states,  particularly  Georgia.  Tne 
Southern  delegation  in  Congress  was  ail  but  unanimous  in  voting  for  the  Com- 
promise Tariff  of  1333.  At  thi3  period  the  demand  for  protection  came  only 
from  the  hemp  growers  of  Kentucky  and  Missouri,  the  sugar  planters  of  Louisi- 
ana, and  mining  interests  in  Virginia  and  Maryland. 

in  the  early  years  of  its  existence  the  Haig  party  in  the  South  wa3  more 
strongly  anti-tariff  than  the  Democratic,  As  late  as  1340  the  party,  because 
of  divisions  in  its  rank3,  went  before  the  country  without  committing  itself, 
upon  the  subject.  In  1342.  however,  Southern  Whigs  in  Congress,  with  a few 
exceptions,  were  whipped  into  line  in  support  of  the  protective  tariff  measure 
of  that  year.'*'  Again  in  1344,  during  a presidential  campaign  in  which  Henry 
Clay,  the  champion  of  the  "American  System,"  was  the  Whig  candidate,  every 
Southern  Whig  member  of  the  house  of  Representat  ives  but  one  voted  against 
the  McKay  bill,  which  was  supported  by  every  Southern  Democrat  but  one,"  The 
action  of  the  Whigs  may  be  attributed  chiefly  to  political  considerations : 
Southern  Whig  leaders  felt  the  need  of  a broadly  national  conservative  party, 
and  recognized  that  it  could  be  built  only  upon  the  basis  of  compromise.  In 

1.  Cole,  Whig  Party  in  the  South.  93,99. 

2.  Cong.  Globe.  23  Cong.  1 Sess.,  622;  Wiles  * Register,  LXV I,  177, 

3.  Cole,  0£.  cit. . 1G0;  National  Intelligencer,  Jan.  4,  1344,  letter  of 
Wm,  A.  Graham  accepting  the  Whig  nomination  for  governor  of  North  Carolina; 
ibid. . Jan.  13,  letter  from  Wm.  C,  Rives;  ibid.  Jan.  20,  Feb.  15,  Mar.  7, 


155 


1*42  the  state  of  the  public  treasury  imperatively  demanded  an  increase  in 
the  revenues;  so  that  the  tariff  of  that  year  could  be  plausibly  defended  as  a 
revenue  measure  offering  incidental  protection  by  discriminatory  schedules,^ 

In  1844  repeal  could  be  opposed  upon  the  grounds  that  tne  revenues  were  still 
required,  and  that  the  tariff  was  working  well,5  Whigs  pointed  to  the  first 
signs  of  reviving  prosperity  (after  the  panic  of  1*37)  as  evidence  that  the 
tariff  was  not  injuring  the  South,  Furthermore,  the  Whigs  welcomed  the  cotton 
factories  which  were  springing  up  here  and  there  throughout  the  Southern 

i 

states  as  a justification  of  the  protective  policy,  and  prophesied  that  soon 
the  divergence  of  interests  between  the  sections,  upon  which  the  division  on 
the  tariff  issue  was  based,  would  cease  to  exist,0  They  charged  the  slow 
progress  of  manufactures  in  the  South  to  the  hostility  of  the  Democratic  party, 
and  declared  the  absence  of  diversified  industries  to  be  the  cause  of  the 
declining  prosperity  which  all  deplored. ^ 

Southern  Democrats  in  Congress  were  unanimous  in  opposing  the  Tariff 
of  1842;  but  the  majority  at  that  time  did  not  hold  extreme  views,  in  1843' 
Calhoun  came  forward  as  the  free  trade  and  reform  candidate  for  the  Democratic 
nomination  for  the  presidency.  Finding  his  chances  poor,  he  wrote,  early  in 
1-Ci44,  a letter  announcing  hi3  withdrawal,'  The  section  devoted  to  the  tariff 
was  too  extreme  for  his  friends  outside  of  South  Carolina,  and  at  their 
request  ms  modified  before  the  letter  was  published,^  The  McKay  bill,  upon 
which  the  attempt  was  made  to  unite  the  Democratic  party  in  the  summer  of  1*44, 

5.  Cong.  Globe.  28  Cong,  1 Se33.  51C,  612;  National  ingelligencer,  Aug.  6, 
1*44,  quoting  the  Charleston  Courier. 

6.  Niles  ' Register,  LX  1 1,  71;  LXVII,  132,  quoting  the  Vickabur^  Whig; 

Cong.  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  512,  Berrien,  of  Georgia,  in  the  Senate, 

7.  See  ante,  Ch.  II. 

ft.  'Works,  VI,  239  ff , Nat  ional  Intelligencer,  Feb,  3,  1844, 

9.  "But  I soon  found,  it  was  altogether  too  high  to  be  sustained  by  a large 
portion;  in  much  the  majority;  and  among  them  the  most  intelligent  and  devoted." 
Calhoun  to  Ja3.£dw. Calhoun,  Feb.  14,  1844,  Calhoun  Corr. ; Calhoun  to  Duff  Green, 


.(• 


. 


* 


• 

1 

. 


156 


was  a moderately  protective  measure.10  Although  there  was  considerable 
dissatisfaction  with  it  among  Southern  Democrats,  every  Southern  Democrat  in 
the  House  but  one  voted  for  it.11  When  a faction  in  South  Carolina  proposed 
to  take  the  defeat  of  the  McKay  bill,  by  the  defection  of  twenty-seven  northern 
Democrats,  and  the  subsequent  publication  of  Polk’s  "Kane  letter,"  designed  to 
hold  northern  tariff  Democrats  in  line,  as  proof  positive  that  no  relief  from 
the  burdens  of  protection  could  be  expected  from  the  Democratic  party,  and 
sought  to  put  the  state  again  "upon  its  sovereignty,"  they  reoeived  remarkably 
little  sympathy  outside  their  own  state.  A correspondent  of  the  Charleston 

Mercury  wrote,  "It  is  not  to  be  disguised  that  out  of  South  Carolina,  the 

,,12 

whole  tariff  battle  has  to  be  fought  over. 

The  Walker  tariff,  enacted  in  1846  after  a sharp  struggle,  was  by  no  means  a 
free  trade  measure.13  Tea  and  coffee  were  put  on  the  free  list.  Raw  materials 
used  in  manufactures  were  taxed  only  five  per  cent.  Duties  on  most  manufactured 
articles  were  high  enough  to  afford  considerable  incidental  protection  to  those 
engaged  in  their  manufacture.  Whereas  the  Compromise  Tariff  of  1833  had  recogniz- 
ed the  principle  of  a horizontal  rate,  the  Walker  tariff  contained  nine  schedules 
Upon  the  whole  the  bill  was  satisfactory  to  Southern  Democrats.  Senator  Haywood, 
of  Rorth  Carolina,  resigned  his  seat  rather  than  vote  for  it.14  He  opposed  it 
because  it  abandoned  the  principles  of  the  McKay  bill,  upon  which  the  party  had 
appealed  to  the  country;  it  broke  faith  with  Northern  Democrats;  it  v/oald  not 
meet  the  demands  for  revenue  crated  by  the  Mexican  War;  it  did  not  0 ive 

9.  (Continued)  Jan.  15,  1844. 

10.  Cong.  Globe.  28  Cong.,  1 8ess.  369,  text  of  the  bill. 

11.  ibid.,  28  Cong.  1 Sess. , 622;  Kile_s ' Regi  ster , L*v/I,  17 : • 

12.  Quoted  in  Nile^  Register,  LXVI,  435. 

13.  Cf.  Dewey,  Financial  History  of.  the.  United  States,  249-52. 

14.  "Address  of  Honorable  Wm.  H.  Haywood,  Jr.,  to  the  people  bf  North  Caro- 
lina," etc.,  in  Sat,  Intel,.  Aug.  19,  1846;  Niles 'Register,  1XK,  410.  But  see 

Diary  of  James  K.  Polk, Tj, — 


157 


auff  ic  ient  notice  to  interests  formerly  protected;  and  together  with  the 
independent  treasury  constituted  too  great  a revolution  in  the  government  *s 
financial  policy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  bill  was  not  revolutionary  enough  to 
satisfy  some  of  the  free  trade  members  from  South  Carolina  and  other  cotton 
states;  and  they  voted  for  it  only  because  they  considered  it  a decided 
improvement  over  the  Tariff  of  1*42,  and  because  nothing  better  could  be 

secured. ^ 

The  election  of  1*44  had  cut  down  materially  the  number  of  Southen  wngs 
in  Congress.  With  two  exceptions  in  the  House  and  one  in  the  Senate,  they 
voted  with  their  colleagues  of  the  North  against  the  bill.10  After  a few 
years  Southern  Whigs  manifested  a disposition  to  acquiesce  in  the  continuance 
of  the  Walker  Tariff;  and  for  several  years  the  tariff  was  not  an  issue  in 
Southern  politics.  Whigs  contended  that  in  yielding  opposition  to  the  existing 
tariff  they  abandoned  none  of  their  principles;  for,  they  said,  the  duties 
were  high  enough  to  afford  a fair  degree  of  protection,  and  protective  prin- 
ciples were  recognized.  From  time  to  time,  particularly  from  the  border 
states,  there  came  restatements  of  the  arguments  for  a protective  tariff  and 
reaffirmations  of  the  faith.  In  1*49,  when  the  Southern  people  were  interestea 
in  the  possibility  of  developing  cotton  manufacturers,  a suggestion  from 
Hamilton  Smith  of  Kentucky  that  the  Constitution  should  be  amended  to  permit, 
the  imposition  of  an  export  duty  upon  raw  cotton  ’was  received  in  some  quarters 

15.  Cong..  Globe,  29  Gong.,  1 3ess.,  1043,  W.  L.  Yancey- s speech  in 
the  House. 

16.  Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  ICoo,  1*5* » 


158 


17 

with  favorable  comment," 

As  long  as  the  tariff  was  a party  issue  the  opponents  of  protection  were 

inclined  to  oppose  the  introduction  of  manufacturing.  Men  too  often  confused 

manufactures  and  protection,  and  in  opposing  the  latter  were  led  into  hostility 

to  the  former.  Calhoun,  indeed,  always  protested  that  he  was  not  opposed  to 

manufactures  as  such,1^  and  the  same  may  be  3aid  of  other  leaders.  But,  m 

general,  there  was  a feeling  that  the  establishment  of  diversified  industry 

would  take  the  edge  from  the  anti-tariff  sentiment.19  The  advocates  of 

diversified  industry  had  to  be  very  chary  in  asking  for  fostering  legislation, 

especially  in  Democratic  states.  They  frequently  gave  the  assurance  that  the 

only  thing  needed  in  the  my  of  encouragement  was  liberal  incorporation  laws 

and  freedom  from  discriminatory  taxation.  It  was  difficulx  to  3ecaiv  oV_, 

the  passage  of  general  corporation  laws.  Corporations  were  unpopular  in 

the  forties  as  a result  of  the  experience  of  the  previous  decade,  -itn 

banking  institutions  in  particular.  In  1847-1848  the  question  of  granting  - 

liberal  charters  to  corporations  for  manufacturing  purposes  became  a political 

issue  in  Georgia,  Governor  Crawford,  -Vhig,  recommended  such  legislation.  He 

was  supported  by  the  Whig  press  and  a portion  of  the  Democratic  press.  Otner 

Democratic  organs,  however,  were  persuaded  that  Crawford’s  suggestions  were 

parcel  of  a design  to  "quench  the  growing  spirit  of  Democracy  everywhere"  and 

" ride  us  down  b*.  the  Massachusetts  polic^oljlncorporaUd  wealth,  under  the 

false  plea  of  developing  cur  resources."20  Thefeeneral  inc  orporat  ion  laws 

17  " I enclose  you  a letter  of  Ex.  Pres.  Tyler.  The  only  objection  he  makes 
±(.  ± enclose  you  ***  a bounty  to  foreign  cotton 

tc  my  first  proposition  is  that  it  «ou.o  act  c{,  Smith  to  Ham- 

mcriup.3”*1 ViV.is'irrsitb's  ™ “f* 

S'  ^lUter.’t^oui.viXU  M ^ V-ee. 

(the  letters).  The  idea  was  amplified  by  o.S.  Cockx  j.i  ., 

DeBov/’s  Review.  VII,  484  ff. 

IS.  Calhoun  to  Abbott  Lawrence,  May  13,  1845,  Calhoun  Cor£ U.1HZ ,* 
1C,.  Rprlater.  LXVIII,  374  (Aug.  16,  1845),  quoting  Charleston  ..-ercuffi 

20.  Hopkins  Holsey,  editor  of  the  Athens'  (Georgia)  Southern  Banner,  to 

U„uj*lt(L>hb  . /W  3 Ml.  7bembs.  St*P/i*ns.  Cobb  . B7- 7/-  — — — 


159 


were  enacted.21  In  185C  Governor  Seabrook,  cf  South  Carolina,  wroxe 
William  Gregg  asking  what  measures  he  considered  necessary  for  the  encourage- 
me„t  of  manufactures.  Gregg  replied  that  he  considered  unnecessary  and  unwise 
any  pecuniary  aid  from  the  state  either  in  the  form  of  loons  or  otherwise. 

The  only  thing  needed  was  the  "privileges  and  advantages  granted  in  other 
states  in  the  use  of  associated  capital."  He  told  hew  cheaply  goods  were 
being  made  in  the  Graniteville  factory;  this  fact,  he  said,  should  "aisarm  all 

opposition  from  those  who  fear  that  we  may  ultimately  join  the  northern  people 

*•22 

in  a clamor  for  protection 

After  the  Walker  tariff  had  been  in  effect  a few  years,  and  the  tori.! 
controversy  had  abated,  opposition  to  diversified  Indus.. y ~r‘.i 
grounds  gave  way  to  a considerable  extent,  and  many  anti-tariff  men  and  Jour- 
nals strongly  supported  the  movement  to  bring  the  spindles  to  the  cotton  and 
to  diversify  industry  generally.  Typical  of  their  reasoning  was  the  reply 
of  the  Richmond  Inquirer  t o a Whig  contemporary's  charge  of  inconsistency.  . 
3aid  the  InQuirer;  "We  have  never  denounced  home  industry.  We  have,  however, 

steadily  denounced  that  hot-bed  system  of  legislation,  wnoue  - ■ a 

pamper  one  class  at  the  expense  of  all  others,  and,  especially  to  foster  tr.e 
monopolies  of  the  Worth,  which  have  flourished  and  grown  fat  upon  the  tribute 
of  the  South.  It  was  to  benefit  home  manufactures  and  not  to  i«»‘»  •* 


21,  DeBov/'s  Review,  XVII,  2 5V. 

-2  Gregg  to  Seabrook,  May  1C,  1ft SO,  IhitemareJl  la.  S|S&2£fe  ESESS? 
absence* of  general  ineorp.r.tion_la«^^^o^^Ucl^  ^ 
Little  difficulty  was  experienced  in  g _*>  r fun  0f  such  special 

legislatures.  The  session  laws  of  the  various  states  are  tuu. 

legislation. 


160 

we  opposed  the  tariff."23  There  was  a common  element  in  the  contention  ox  the 
free  traders  that  the  tariff  benefited  New  England  and  Pennsly vania  manufac- 
tures at  the  expense  of  the  Southern  agriculture  and  the  contention  of  those 
who  labored  for  Southern  industrial  independence  that  it  was  tne  manufacture 
of  Southern  staples  and  the  sale  to  the  Southern  people  of  numerous  articles 
which  should  be  produced  at  home  which  enriched  and  strengthened  tne  Nortn 
while  weakening  and  impoverishing  the  South:  Both  arguments  represented 

one  section  as  paying  tribute  to  the  other  . This  common  element  made  it  easy 
for  anti-tariff  men  to  support  efforts  being  made  to  diversify  southern 

industry. 

When  the  desirability,  from  both  the  economic  and  political  viewpoints,  ox 
making  the  South  commercially  and  industrially  independent  of  the  Nortn,  was 
understood,  it  was  inevitable  that  a demand  should  arise  for  the  protection 
of  heme  enterprises  against  Northern  competitors.  A tariff  might  project 
American  industries  from  European  competition;  but  more  dangerous  to  the  infant 
industries  of  the  South  than  foreign  competition  were  the  firmly  establisnea 

industries  of  the  North. 

In  fact,  in  the  forties  several  Southern  states  intermittently  discrim- 
inated in  their  tax  law  in  favor  of  home  manufactures.  The  laws  of  Virginia 
in  1840  and  a number  of  years  thereafter  exempted  articles  made  within  the 
state  from  the  tax  on  sales.24  3y  act  of  1843  South  Carolina  exempted  from 
this  tax,  "the  products  of  this  state,  and  the  unmanufactured  products  of  any 
of  tne  United  States  or  Territories  thereof."26  Alabama,  also,  by  an  ac-.  of 
January  15,  1844,  exempted  articlesjranufactured  within  the  state  from  the  tax 

23.  July  23,  1850.  James  K.  Hammond,  who  certainly  could  not  be  c^iaea 

with  protective  principles,  carefully  distinguished  between  manufacturers 
and  the  protective  system.  De3ow*3  Review,  VIII,  b0<  , 

24.  Acts  of  tne  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  18.3S--1S,  act  of  Var.  3,  i -c 

25.  Nat.  Intel.  Aug.  10,  1844,  "Precept  and  Practice  of  South  Carolina.  ' 


161 

on  sales.26  Taxation  during  the  period  was  very  light,  and  these  exemptions 
amounted  to  very  little.  There  were  also  as  many  cases  of  exemptions  of  other 
classes  of  property  from  taxation,  for  example,  farm  implements  and 
mechanics*  tools. 

In  the  tariff  debates  of  1844  and  1846  anti-tariff  men  from  the  South 
referred  to  the  possibility  of  adopting  a policy  of  state  protection.  "If 
the  protective  policy/  said  a.  B.  Rhett,  "is  wise  and  just  with  foreign 
nations,  it  must  be  equally  so  between  states,  for  there  is  far  more  inter- 
course and  affinity  than  between  port  ions  of  the  United  States  and  foreign 
nations  than  between  different  portions  of  the  Union."2'  Oeorge  Ho Duffle 
threatened,  in  1844.  to  resign  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  secure  a 
seat  in  the  South  Carolina  legislature,  and  bring  forward  a proposition  to 
tax  all  manufactured  goods  brought  into  the  state.26  Seaborn  J ones,  of 
Georgia,  also  suggested  that  Southern  states  had  a remedy  at  hand  for  unjust 
taxation  in  "countervailing  legislation,  putting  excise  duties  upon  manufac- 
tured articles  which  have  not  paid  revenue  duty  to  the  government. during 
the  political  crisis  of  1850  and  thereabouts,  many  proposals  were  made 
South  for  non-intercourse  with  the  North,  discriminatory  taxation  of  Northern 
manufactures,  exllusicn  of  Northern  ships  from  Sout hern  harbors,  cessation 

of  easiness  and  pleasure  trips  to  the  North,  withdrawal  of  subscriptions  to 
to  Northern  newspapers,  and  a number  of  other  measures  of  the  same  general 
character.  They  can  be  attributed  chiefly  to  a desire  to  retaneie  .gainst 
the  anti-slavery  party,  to  arouse  the  business  interests  of  the  North  to  the 

26.  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of.  Alabama,.  1843-44.  p.63 

27.  Cong.  Globe,  2b  Cong.,  1 °ess.,  o-  . 

2ft#  Niles  1 ries;i3ter,  LXVI,  23C. 

29 , Cong.  Globe,  2&  Cong.,  1 3ess.,  *91. 


162 


necessity  of  curbing  the  abolition  agitato.cn,  and  to  teach  the  North  the 

"money  value  of  the  Union";  out  it  was  an  added  recommend  at  ocn  tnat  these 

measures  would  tend  to  promote  commercial  and  industrial  independence. 

During  the  struggle  over  the  disposition  of  the  territory  acquired  from 

Mexico,  J • C,  Calhoun  wrote  to  public  men  throughout  $he  South  requesting 

their  views  upon  two  lines  of  procedure  for  bringing  the  North  to  a sense  of 

justice.  One  was  the  assembling  of  a Southern  convention;  the  other, 

30 

retaliation  against  Northern  states  for  unccnst it ut -tonal  acts,  in  one  of 
these  letters  he  suggested  that  closing  Southern  ports  to  Northern  seagoing 
vessels  would  promote  direct  trade  with  Europe, 

In  the  Nashville  Convention,  of  1*50,  retaliation  was  supported  by  a 
minority  as  a proper  measure  to  employ  in  case  the  North  did  not  grant  justice 
to  the  South, ^2  At  the  adjourned  session,  November  1850,  the  Tennessee  dele- 
gation supported  resolutions  which  accepted  the  recently  adopted  compromise, 
outlined  the  line  of  conduct  Northern  states  would  be  expected  to  pursue  in- 
the  future,  and  recommended  that,  in  case  this  line  was  transgressed,  the  people 
of  the  South  wesort  to  the  "most  rigid  system  of  commercial  non- intercourse'’ 
v/ith  all  offending  states,  cities,  and  communities.  The  legislatures  of  the 
several  states  were  invited  to  join  in  the  recommendation.  Counties,  towns, 
and  neighborhoods  were  asked  to  adopt  resolutions  against  purchasing  or  using 

articles  from  offending  Northern  states  or  communities.  To  make  it  possiole 

to  follow  these  recommendations,  it  was  further  re co amended 

^that  the  states  encourage  their  own  mechanics  and  manufactures,  ana  pu3n 

30,  Wilson  Numpkin  to  Calhoun,  Nov,  18,  1847;  Joseph  V,  Lesesne  to 
Calhoun,  Sept.  12,  1847;  H,  W,  Connor  to  Calhoun,  Nov.  2,  1848;  Calhoun  to 
J ohn  H.  Means,  Apr.  13,  1*49,  Calhoun.  Correspondence. 

31,  Benton,  Thirty  Years*  View.  II,  698-700,  quotation  from  a letter 
from  Calhoun  to  a member  of  the  Alabama  legislature,  1847. 

32,  See  Chapter  III  for  a discussion  of  the  Nashville  Convention. 


r'3 

forward  their  internal  improvements  xo  the  seaboard.  ' 

In  Virginia  such  a remedy  met  with  consider ah Is  favor,  'hen,  after  the 
passa  e of  the  Compromise  acts,  of  1850,  a disposition  ’-as  she  an  in  xhe  lorth , 
particularly  in  Boston,  not  to  acepuiese  in  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  Virginians  took  fire,  and  a strong  sentiment  for  retaliation  developed.  The 

citizens  of  Prince  George  County  met  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a Southern  rights 

34 

association.  Resolutions  were  adopted  lodging  those  present  to  huy  in  the  Forth 
no  coarse  cottons  or  woolens,  readymade  clothing,  carriages , "buggies,  plows, 

axes,  harness  - in  general,  nothing  which  could  he  produced  in  the  South  or  ob- 
tained from  Europe.  The  resolutions  furthermore  pledged  them  to  employ  no  North- 
ern teachers;  to  withdraw  patronage  from  Northern  schools,  newspapers,  and  hooks; 
to  " ake  no  pleasure  trips  to  the  North;  to  huy  of  no  merchant  or  employ  no  mech- 
anic nc~  identified  with,  the  South;  and  to  employ  no  vessels  owned  or  commanded 

7 C 

by  a Northern  man  or  manned  by  a Northern  crew.  ° Similar  associations  were 
formed  in  other  counties.  The  most  important  and  permanent,  of  the  Southern 

rights  associations  in  the  state  was  the  Central  Rights  Association  of  Virginia, 

37 

which  y as  organized  in  Richmond  in  December,  1850,'  and  continued  in  existence 
until  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  Tar.  Some  of  the  a lest  and  most  prominent  men  of 
Richmond  and  the  state  at  large  were  members.  The  members  were  pledged  to  "use  til 
lawful  and  constitutional  means  in  our  power  to  arrest  further  aggressions  of 
the  non-slave holding  states,"  and  "to  appeal  to  the  legislatures  of  the  state 
to  enact  such  laws  a s were  prudent  and  constitutional  for  effecting,  ultimately, 

33.  "atlonal  Intelligencer.  Nov.  16,  1850;  A. V. Brown,  3 e echos.  Congres- 
sional and  Political . etc.  318-21  (text  of  the  resolution);  DuBose,  Life  and 
Times  of  Yancey . 248;  Speech  of  the  Hon.  Lang do n Cheves  in  t he  ashville  Con- 
vention. p.  20. 

34.  Richmond  Rn-giir or . Nov.  15,  1850. 

35.  Ibid.  . Nov.  20,  Dec.  10,  1350. 

36.  Ibid. . Dec.  31,  1850. 

37.  Ibid. . Dec.  10,  13,  17,  24,  31,  1850. 


164 


commercial  independence"  of  such  states  as  by  laws  or  otherwise  sought  to 

prevent  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.0*  Tne  first  petition 

addressed  by  the  association  to  the  state  legislature  requested  the  passage  of 

excise  tax  laws  aiscriminat ing  in  favor  of  articles  of  Virginia  manufacture  or 

of  direct  importation  from  abroad.  Such  taxation  wa3  believed  to  be  the  most 

certain  means  of  securing  ultimately  Virginis  *s  commercial  independence  and  the 

o q 

safety  of  her  property  and  institut ions, 

A year  earlier  Governor  Floyd  had  suggested  aiscriminat ory  taxation  in 
a special  message  to  the  general  assembly.  In  November,  1850,  he  introduced 
the  subject  in  the  state  c onst itut ional  convention*  ^ In  his  last  message 
to  the  general  assembly,  shortly  after,  he  again  recommended  it.42  a member 

of  the  legislature  he  championed  a bill  to  impose  a tax  of  five  per/fcent  on  all 
good3  brought  into  the  state  for  sale  except  direct  imports*4*^  The  Democratic 
press  of  tne  state  generally  supported  tne  plan  of  discriminatory  taxation,44 
In  the  opinion  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  it  wouT'd  check  the  abolition  movement 
in  tne  North,  "give  tone  and  strength  to  Soutnern  manufactures,  commerce  and  ail 
the  interests  of  the  South,"  and  ward  off  disunion,4"*  The  Enquirer  charged 
the  Y/higs  with  inc onsistency  in  opposing  Floyd’s  proposal  while  advocating  a 
higher  tariff.4^  The  conservative  press  generally  opposed  the  plan.'11'  They 
denounced  it  as  calculated  to  lead  to  a dismemberment  of  the  Union  and  as 
"subversive  of  the  true  interests  of  the  Soutnern  states,"  in  the  North  it 
would  not  injure  the  abolitionists  but  rather  the  friends  of  the  Souxn;  for  xne 

38.  Virginia  Documents.  1850-51,  Doc,  60,  "Petition  of  the  Central 
Southern  Rights  Association  of  Virginia,  and  Accompanying  Documents,"  p,5, 

Cf.  So.  Lit.  Mes.  XVII,  178  ff. 

39.  Ibid. . Doc.  60;  DeBow’s  Review,  XII,  109.  40.  Richmond  Enquirer, 

Nov.  15,  1850.  41.  Ibid.,  Nov.  19,  1850.  42.  Io id  *_.  Dec,  3,  1850; 

Virginia  Documents.  1850-51.  Doc,  I.  43.  Richmond  Enquirer,  Jan.  31,1851, 

44.  Richmond  Enquirer.  Nov.  15,  22,  1850,  quoting  a number  of  Virginia  newspapers 

45,  Dec.  13,  1850.  46.  Dec.  17,  1850.  47.  Richmond  Whig.  Jan.  2,  22, 

Feb.  12,  1851;  Nat i onal  Intelligencer,  Dec,  9,  12,  17,  28,  1850. 


165 


former  were  not  engaged  in  commerce.  It  was  said  to  De  unconst  it  utional;  the 
National  Intelligencer  called  it  "another  form  of  null  if  icat  ion.  'AU  In 
opposing  Floyd's  proposal  the  Whigs  resorted  to  good  free  trade  arguments: 
Virginia  must  depend  upon  the  North  for  materials  with  which  to  construct 
her  internal  improvements;  she  could  not  rely  upon  her  own  resources.  >ere 
discriminatory  taxation  imposed,  the  North  would  lose  a market,  and  both 
sections  would  be  sacrificed  to  the  cupidity  of  ingland.  The  tax  would  be  paid 
by  the  consumer. ^ The  Whigs  were  not,  of  course,  animated  by  any  feeling  of 

hostility  to  the  cause  of  Southern  commercial  and  industrial  independence. 

Senator  . , 

A^errien,  of  Georgia,  a Whig,  in  public  speeches  expressed  views  similar 

to  tnose  of  Governor  lloyd.  At  Macon  he  was  reported  to  have  said  that  he  did 
not  wish  the  Georgia  Convention  to  propose  non- intercourse  nor  an  import  tax, 
a3  both  wo  niche  uncons  titut  j.onal,  but  he  thought  it  best  to  recommend  a 
measure  by  which  Northern  goods,  after  they  had  arrived  in  Georgia  and  had  oeen 
delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  merchants,  shouldbe  cnarged  with  a nigh  and  . 
discriminatory  tax.  Such  a measure  would  encourage  Georgia  manufactures, 
greatlyabr idge  importations  of  Northern  goods,  and  arouse  the  North  to  a sense 
of  the  power  of  the  South  to  protect  herself.  ^ In  Alabama  Southern  rights 
associations  were  formed,  and  resolutions  adopted  similar  to  those  adopted 
by  the  associations  in  Virginia,"1  in  Mississippi  members  of  the  Southern 
rights  party  expressed  themselves  in  favor  of  excluding,  oy  legislative 
enactment,  goods  manufactured  north  of  Max  on  and  Dixon  *3  Line.1-' 

4ft.  Dec.  17,  IP 50,  editorial 

4$ , Richmond  Whig.  Jan.  2,  22,  lft 51* 

50.  Richmond  Enquirer.  Nov.  15,  lft50. 

51.  Ibid.,  N0v.  22,  lft5Q;  DeBow,  ^naust x-ial  Res o ur ^ e s , *,  1J^» 

52.  Cong.  Globe.  32  Cong.,  1 Sess,,  Appx.  2ft4. 


166. 

In  South  Carolina,  after  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1*50 
public  opinion  was,  a3  we  have  seen,  widely  divided  in  regard  to  the  proper 
policy  to  be  pursued.  In  the  hope  of  unifying  the  state,  J.H,  Hammond  brought 
forward  a "Plan  of  State  Act  ion, w which,  although  not  adopted,  met  with  consider- 
able favor. 20  He  proposed  that  the  state  convention  declare  the  right  of 
secession,  prohibit  citizens  from  holding  Federal  offices  outside  tne  state, 
refuse  to  accept  Federal  appropriations  for  any  purpose,  impose  a double  tax 
upon  the  property  of  non-residents,  "as  far  as  it  constitutionally  may,  impose 
taxes  upon  manufactures  of  non-  slave;  holding  states,"  encourage  manufactures 
by  granting  liberal  charters  to  companies,  encourage  agriculture,  and  wiui 
state  funds  "aid  in  the  establishment  of  direct  commercial  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  by  steamships  adapted  to  purposes  of  war,  in  case  of  need." 
Already  (Governor  Seabrook  had  recommended  the  encouragement  of  manufactuxes 

by  liberal  corporat  ion  laws ) ^ and  the  legislature  had  discussed  a proposal 

55 

to  levy  discriminatory  taxation  upon  Northern  gooQ3. 

a bill  was  introduced  in  the  North  Carolina  legislature,  Novemoer,  1^50, 
to  impose  a tax  cf  ten  percent  upon  goods  brought  into  the  state  from  non* 
slaveholding  states  after  January  1,  1*52**^  The  House  of  Commons  adopted 
resolutions  introduced  by  a Whig  member  which  declared^  that  (1)  North  Carolina 
was  absolved  by  the  abolition  agitation  from  further  obligation  to  protect 
Northern  manufactures  by  a tariff;  (2)  if  North  Carolina  industries  required 
protection  it  could  be  "better  effected  by  State  than  by  Congressional  Legisla- 
tion"; (3)  the  Walker  tariff  was  high  enough;  (4)  and  requested  that  members 

of  Congress  from  North  Carolina  vote  against  any  increase.  These  resolutions 

53.  J.H. Hammond  Papers.  No.  2£#19*,  a broadside  printed  by  the  Cnarleston 
Mercury,  accompanied  by  a note  to  the  editors,  dated  April  29,  a • 

To  Wr.  dilmore  Simms,  April  29,  1*51;  A.P.  Aldrich  to  Hammond,  May  16,  Nov.  xO; 
Hammond  to  Simms  May  29,  July  1;  Mqxcy  Gregg  to  Hammond,  Nov.  14,  1*51. 

54.  Richmond  Lnq uirer,  Dec,  3,  1*50. 

55.  National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  9,  12,  1*50. 

56.  Richmond  Eng u'ire r , Nov.  29,  1*50. 

57.  Richmond  Whi^,  Jan.  17,  1*51.  


167 

were  adopted  by  votes  of  105-2.  62-32.  75-16  and  64-6  respectively,  Whigs  as 
well  as  Democrats  composing  the  maj  orities.5*  Even  before  these  resolutions 
had  been  adapted,  Southern  Whig  members  of  Congress,  particularly  from  North 
Carolina,  had  defeated  attempts  made  in  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-first 
Congress  to  revise  the  tariff  upward  in  the  interest,  chiefly,  o* 
sylvan ia  iron  industry. 

The  action  of  the  North  Carolina  Whigs  was  indicative  of  a marked  falling 
off  in  tariff  sentiment  in  the  South.  3o  staundh  a protectionist  organ  as 
the  Richmond  Whig,  wavered  in  its  faith,  and  warned  manufacturers  that  they 
need  not  expect  further  protection;0  For  several  years  after  the  attempt  of 
the  iron  interest  in  1650  to  secure  higher  duties,  the  tariff  question  was 
not  before  Congress  or  the  country  except  for  occasional  attempts  of  Southern 
and  Western  congressmen  to  secure  the  remittance  or  repeal  of  the  duty  on 
railroad  iron.  North,  as  well  as  South,  came  to  acquiesce  in  the  Walker  tariff, 
with  the  exception,  in  the  South,  of  men  of  the  South  Sardinia  School,  wno 
professed  to  find  the  tariff  of  1646  oppressive,  just  as  that  of  1642  had 

been.^1 

The  Walker  tariff,  however,  proved  an  excellent  revenue  producing  measure, 
receipts  exceeded  expenditures;  and  an  accumulating  surplus  in  the  treasury 
finally  forced  Congress  to  undertake  revision.  A late  attempt  in  the  second 

56.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.  2 Sees.,  Appx.  206,  Thomas  L.  Clingman,  in 
the  House,  Feb.  15,  1^51. 

5S  ibid.  30  Cong,,  1 Sess.,  72»,  1612,  1951;  i£i£.,  31  Cong,  2 3ess., 
206,  Clingman  fs  explanation  of  the  action  of  North  Carolina 


60.  Jan.  17,  Feb.  12,  Mar.  IS,  21,  and  31,  16sl, 


61.  Con*.  Globe.  32  Cong.  2 Sees.,  35,  Woodward,  of  South  Carolina,  an 
the  House,  Dec.  1C,  1^52. 


168 


f)  ? 

session  of  the  Thirty-third  Congress,  March,  1855,  failed,'  but  it  was 

generally  understood  tnat  the  next  Congress  must  act.  Contemporaneously 

agitation  was  started  in  some  quarters  of  the  South  for  the  abandonment  of  the 

tariff  system  altogether  and  the  substitution  of  direct  taxation,  in  the 

Southern  Commercial  Convention,  Savannah,  December,  1*56,  resolutions  were 

reported  which  pronourfted  the  tariff  to  be  the  cause  of  the  decline  of  Southern 

63 

commerce  and  declared  for  absolute  free  trade  and  direct  taxation.-'  Tne 
resolutions  were  not  adopted,  but  were  referred  to  a committee  instructed  to 

reported  at  the  next  convention. 

The  Tariff  of  1857  was  passed  after  short  and  rather  desultory  debates  in 

the  House  and  Senate.  The  debates  contained  remarkably  little  of  a sectional 

nature,  and  the  only  interests  greatly  dissatisfied  werethe  iron  manufacturers 

and  the  wool  growers.  The  bill  as  finally  passed  was  written  by  Senator 

Hunter,  of  Virginia.  As  did  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Gutnne,  Hunter  toon  a 

fairly  liberal  attitude  toward  the  manufacturing  interests."*1  The  rates  we  re  . some 
,t  respect,  however  the 

what  lower  hose  of  the  Walker  tariff.  In  one  A bill  was  more  in  accord 

A 

with  protective  principles  than  the  former  act.;  for  it  provided 

raw  materials  where  the  demand  was  for  manufactures.  Cotton  manufactures  were 

favored  by  leaving  the  duties  nearly  as  high  as  thos.  of  the  Tariff  of  A-.-. 

Some  objection  was  raised  by  Southern  members  to  tne  enlarged  free  list.  The 
only  out-and-out  free  trade  views  expressed  came  from  South  Carolina  me:  . 

Senator  A.  P.  Butler  said,  "Cotton  would  rise  to  twenty  cents  tomorrow  ...  if 

62.  The  House  attached  sections  reducing  the  tariff  as  a rider  to  tne 
Civil  and  Diplomatic  Bill,  the  Senate  struck  them  out.  Con^.  Globe,  33  Cong. 

2 Seas,,  S14,  1088. 

63.  DeBow's  Review.  XXII,  92. 

64.  Cona.  Glooe,  34  Cong.,  3 3ess.,  Appx.  32ft  Speecn  in  the  Senate 
Feb.  26,  1857;  Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1 oeso.,  al  ■ > 


169 

had  not  a tariff."65  Representative  W.  W.  Boyce,  of  Charleston,  declared 
for  free  trade  and  direct  taxation.66  Only  two  Southern  Congressmen  voted 
against  the  hill.67  Outside  Congress  there  was  little  dissatisfaction  except 
among  the  ultras.  DeBow,  for  example,  was  at  first  inclined  to  fc 

measure  as  a step  in  the  right  direction,  but  later  foun  d that  "the  manufac- 

6fi 

turers  have  again  had  a victory  in  the  adroit  combinations  made." 

The  free  trade  faction  in  the  South  followers  this  partial  victory  over 
protection  by  a general  attack  against  every  form  of  protection  and  privilege 
granted  by  the  Federal  government,  in  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  at 
Knoxville.  August.  1857.  W.  W.  Boyce  again  brought  forward  the  proposal  for 
free  trade  and  direct  taxation.  A committee  reported  it  adversely,  while  the 
debate  showed  sharp  divisions  of  opinion/5  a Virginia  delegate  offered 
resolutions  declaring  that  the  merchant  vessels  of  foreign  nations  should  be 

70 

admitted  to  the  United  State*  coasting  trade  upon  the  same  footing  as  our  own. 

Roger  A.  Pryor,  of  Virginia,  secured  the  appointment  of  a committee  to  «mortal- 

ixe  Congress  for  the  repeal  of  the  fishing  bounties,  which  benefited  Sew 

England  particularly/^  lathe  next  session  of  Congress  Vf.  i,  Boyce  secured 

the  appointment  of  a select  committee  of  the  House  to  inquire  into  and 

report  upon  a reduction  of  the  expenditures  of  the  government,  the  navigation 

• + • vo-  rfutiac,  0vo  imoorts  and  a resort  exclusively  to  internal, 
laws,  the  existing  duties  on  nn/oios, 

65.  Cong.  Globe*  34  Cong.,  3 Bess.,  Appx. 

66.  Ibid..  34  Cong.,  3 Sess,,  Appx.,  21  o 

- n , — ot\  • a I-, ox  358  (votes  in  ^ne  House 

67.  Ibid.,  34  Cong.,  3 Sess.,  *=?=«  apP*.,  ' 

and  Senate/. 

68.  PeBow  *s  Review.  XXII,  381,  354, 

69.  Ibid.,  XXIII,  305,  309,  310-13. 

70.  ibid.,  XXIII,  306,  Fuqua,  of  Virginia. 

71.  Ibid.,  XXIII,  307.  The  subject  ~ Congress. 

up  in  previous  commercial  ^ the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  in 

e.a..  DeBow  »s  Review,  XV 11,  204,  numa 

Charleston.  1854.  ■ - 


» 


1 

t ' 


170 


taxation.73  As  enairman  of  the  committee  Boyce  brought  in  an  able  and 
elaborate  report  presenting  all  the  free  trade  arguments.™  Senator  0. -ay, 
of  Alabama,  attacked  the  fishing  bounties,  and  secured  the  passage  through  the 
Senate,  IBM.  of  a bill  repealing  them.74  He  regarded  this  action  as  but  the 
initial  step  to  the  repeal  of  the  "ship-building,  c oast- /.  u3e 

monopolies  now  enjoyed  by  the  Worth  to  the  wrong  of  the  South. "7b  The  policy 
entered  upon  during  the  preceding  dec a*  of  subsidising  steamship  lines  by 
making  liberal  contracts  for  carrying  the  mails  was  repeatedly  attacked  by 
Southern  Democrats  led  by  Senator  Hunter,  of  Virginia.' 3 After  W ' lfl  f 

no  new  contracts  were  made,  and  finally,  -r  --  tstooer  1,  1-b.,  notice 
was  given  of  complete  abrogation  of  existing  contracts.77 

The  Tariff  of  1857  had  been  in  operation  but  a few  months  when  the 
financial  crash  of  that  year  occurred.  Imports  fell  off  greatly,  and.  shortly 
the  treasury  was  confronted  by  a deficit;  it  soon  became  apparent  that 
another  revision  of  the  tariff  would  have  xo  be  undertaken.  The  discussion 
provoked  revealed  that  in  certain  quarters  of  the  South  the  same  feeling 
against  the  tariff  existed  as  had  been  displayed  in  1832  and  1844.  After  the 
Kansas  question  had  been  temporarily  put  at  rest  in  the  sprias  OJ  lf  - by 
passage  of  the  English  bill,  Senator  Hamoond  told  his  constituents  that  the 

state  could  not  remain  in  the  Union  "witn  nonor,"  ne  gave 

72.  Con,-,.  Oiobe,  3b  Cong.  1 3es3., 

73.  DeBow's  Review,  XXV,  1-27;  Charleston  Mercury  June  M,  r - 

74.  ZT.U,  35  Cong.  1 dess  * , 1330  ff.  . *•  **  ’ 

35  Cong.  1 Seas  2239 • ^ J*.  B«n*U  betters,  Cf. 

75.  C.C.Clay  to  .fa.  Burwell.  May  7,1  b»,  uEa.  ^ 7 t0 

DeBose,  Life  and  Times  ofJf.U  Yancejj,.  368  f*.,  quoting  i 

Thomas  J.  Orme,  May  22,  l* 5*.  , r 

, . arc:  s » 

protective  system  in  one  of  its  very  worst  iOnr.s. 

77.  Bates,  American  Isavigat  ion:  Its_  Rise,  and.  ruiin,  t- 

subsidy  legislation).  H$.  Sta'tu+e*  4 1 Ae.i  of  Jvrjti  (4,  itist. 


attempt  would  be  made  in  the  next  s.ssien  of  ‘engr.”  t0  incr*"#  **  tari“’ 
and  declared  that  the  "plantation  states  should  discard  any  government  which 
adopted  protection."  "Unequal  taxation  is,  after  all,  wait  we  we  *9.v 
in  this  Union.-™  A.  P.  Calhoun  i^address  in  which  he  advocated  secession, 
also  put  the  tariff  foremost  among  the  grievances  of  the  South,™  In  Georgia 
there  was  a group  of  free  traders,  led  by  John  A.  Jones,  who  were  as  violent  in 
their  opposition  to  the  tariff  as  were  those  of  South  Carolina.  The  Montgomery 
Daily  Confederation  thought  free  trade  had  already  "culminated  into  universal 
sanction  and  adoption"  in  the  Southern  states,  and  pronounced  "woe  to  the 
statesman  that  should  attempt  f lend  himself  to  any  move  to  restore"  the 

protective  system* 

Preside nt  Buchanan  in  his  annual  message.  18M,  and  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  Cobb  in  his  annual  report, both  recommended  a revision  of  the  tanfi;  , 
hut  the  Democratic  caucus  considered  it  inexpedient  to  mahe  any  change,  in  the' 
tariff  during  the  session.*1  In  the  next  Congress,  the  Thirty-sixth,  the  . 
Republicans  controlled  the  House.  Justin  3.  Morrill,  of  Vermont.  ' 

bill  whose  level  of  rates  was  about  equal  to  that  o.  the  ran,  i 
although  it  was  constructed  more  in  accord  with  protective  Principles.  ~ The 

- n a There  was  little 

bill  was  passed  over  the  opposition  oi  tne  Democ-axs. 

. . , . . ihp  debates  in  fact  few  Southern  men  spoke  upon  the  oixl. 

sectionalism  in  the  aeoaxes,  m 

78.  Charleston  Mercury,  July  22,  Fvj, 

79.  DeSow*?  Hevisw,  XXVIX,  476. 

80.  Feb,  1, 

81.  Montgomery  Dally  C c nf  els  rat  + on^.  Fe  j.  3 , - 

82.  Cong.  Globe*  3feC0ng.,  1 Sess.,  1*33  **f. 


* 


. 


..I. 


* 


- ■ 


' 


; 


« 


. . 


t • 


172 


Several  Southern  Democrats  declared  their  willingness  to  restore  the  tariff 
of  1646,  The  Democratic  Senate  postponed  action  upon  the  bill  until  the 
short  3es3ion,  1660-61,  when,  after  the  secession  of  several  Southern  states 
had  withdrawn  a number  of  senators  from  the  opposition,  it  was  passed. 

On  the  very  eve  of  the  Civil  War,  however,  there  still  lingered  in  some 
quarters  of  the  South  a sentiment  f or  a protective  tariff.  The  Louisiana  3Ugar 

0 r 

planters  persistently  demanded  protection,  In  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and 
North  Carolina,  there  were  interests  which  a^ked  for  governmental  encouragement, 
iven  in  South  Carolina  3uch  men  as  \ichard  Yeadoa,  of  xne  Cnarle3ton  Courier, 
and  William  Gregg,  retained  their  tariff  views  to  the  end, And,  in  general, 
the  South  was  not  committed  to  free  trade;  but  ratner  to  a tariff  for  revenue 
with  incidental  protection,  Many  Democratic  leaders  admitted  the  propriexy 
of  discrimination  in  duties  witnin  the  revenue  limit.  Only  in  South  Carolina, 
if,  indeed,  in  any  state,  would  a majority  have  been  willing  to  substitute 
internal  taxation  for  duties  upon  imports. 

Nor  can  the  general  opposition  to  a high  tariff,  the  agitation  for  free 
trade,  and  the  concerted  attack  upon  monopolies,  bounties,  and  special  privileges 
of  all  kinds  be  taken  as  proving  the  general  adherence  in  the  South  to  the 
doctrine  of  iaissss-faire,  a protective  tariff  wa3  opposed  not  only  because 
it  fostered  manufactures  at  the  expense  of  the  planting  interests,  but  also 
because  the  manufactures  were  in  the  North,  Likewise  the  fishing  bounties 
were  opposed  not  only  because  they  were  bounties,  but  also  because  theyfiirectly 
benefitted  only  New  Lngland,  The  navigation  lav/s  7/ere  objectionable  to 

64.  Cohg,  Globe.  36  Cong,,  1 Sess,,  3167,  Jefferson  Davis  in  the  Senate. 

Cf.  Charleston  Merc ury . Feb,  26,  1659  f quoting  Rep,  Taylor  of  Louisiana, 

65.  DeBow’s  Review.  XXII,  320-25;  433-36;  XXVI,  461. 

ft6. DeBow’s  Review,  XXX,  102  f,,  for  an  expression  of  Gregg’s  views. 


' 


' •-  H u 

i 


• 

t 




. 


173 


Southern  men  not  only  because  they  enhanoed  freight  rates  in  ooast-wise 
trade,  but  also  because  the  shipping  industry  which  profited  thereby  was 
almost  a monopoly  of  the  North.  If  we  turn  our  attention  to  local  policies  we 
find  about  as  much  disposition  in  the  South  as  elsevhere  to  attempt  by  legis- 
lative enactments  to  modify  the  courses  capital  and  labor  might  take. 

The  policy  of  encouraging  manufactures  and  direct  trade  by  levying  discrim- 
inatory taxes  upon  goods  manufactured  in  the  non-slaveholding  states  and  upon 
articles  imported  from  foreign  countries  throu^i  Northern  ports,  or  by  offering 
bounties  or  granting  exemption  from  taxation  to  home  industries,  was  kept  under 
advisement  in  the  South  until  secession.  In  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention 
in  Charleston,  1854,  General  Tilghman  offered  in  behalf  of  the  Llaiyland  delegation 
a resolution  that  the  legislatures  of  the  Southern  states  should  encourage  manu- 
factures and  commerce  *'by  the  granting  of  bounties  and  all  such  other  benefits 

Q7 

and  privileges  as  the  powers  reserved  and  possessed  by  the  States  may  permit.” 

His  arguments  were  strikingly  similar  to  those  which  might  be  employed  in  the 

advocacy  of  a protective  tariff.  The  convention  appointed  a committee  upon  the 

subject  of  promoting  "Southern  and  Western  manufactures  and  mining  operations,” 

and  recommended  the  encouragement  of  direct  trade  either  by  exempting  the  goods 

imported  from  taxation  or  by  allowing  direct  importers  an  equivalent  drawback 
88 

or  bounty.  D.  H.  London,  president  of  the  Central  Southern  Rights  Associa- 
tion of  Virginia,  thou^it:  "If  there  were  absolute  free  trade.  Southern  ports 

would  soon  surpass  the  North,  not  only  in  commerce  but  in  industry  and  ants.” 

Since,  however,  it  was  impossible  to  secure  free  trade,  he  thought  the  state 

89 

legislature  should  place  an  excise  tax  upon  indirect  imports. 


87.  PeBow1 s Review.  XVII,  255. 

88.  Ibid..  XVII,  254,  258. 

89.  Charleston  Courier.  Mar.  16,  1854,  D.  H.  London  to  F.  W.  Connor. 


5 ' ' >■•  - " r'.'fi  .*  I 


/ 


1 4 


■ 

■ 


■ 


174 


In  Georgia,  in  1854,  a proposal  was  being  discussed  to  exempt  from 
taxation  property  of  corporations  engaged  in  manufacturing."  At  tne  same 
Nelson  Tift,  of  the  Albany  Patriot,  and  others,  were  advocating,  as  a purely 
retaliatory  measure,  the  imposition  of  a tax  of  one  hundred  percent  upon  the 
sale  of  goods  from  states  which  did  not  observe  their  constitutional  obliga- 
tions.91 A Democratic  party  convention,  1=155,  unanimously  adopted  resolutione 
requesting  the  legislature  to  enact  effective  retaliatory  measures.9?  domewnat 
different  was  the  proposal  submitted  by  Robert  Toombs  to  the  Southern  Commer- 
cial Convention  in  Savannan  the  following  year."  He  proposed  to  secure  direct 

trade  -by  imposing  a state  tax  of  - percent,  ad  valor^  <»•»  a11  «el>as> 
and  merchandise  offered  for  sale  within  the  state,  other  than  those  which  shall 
be  imported  from  foreign  countries."  Tne  rate  should  be  high  enough  to  pre- 
vent all  indirect  importations  of  foreign  merchandise  .and  "to  raise  sufficient 
revenue  for  all  the  wants  of  the  state,  without  imposing  upon  the  people  any 
capitation  or  other  direct  tax  whatever."  "Levy  our  taxes  on  consumption,-  . 
he  said)  "it  can  be  mere  easily  paid;  we  shall  then  'ill  our  treasury  to  tne 
extent  of  our  wants,  protect  ourselves  against  the  unjust  legislation  of  our 
sister  states,  bring  direct  trade  to  our  porte,  give  profitable  employment 
to  our  capitol  and  labor,  educate  our  people,  develops  all  omr  resources,  and 
build  up  great,  powerful, and  prosperous  commonwealths,  able  bo  Protect 
people  from  all  dangers^! thin  and  from  without.  -'ucn  - 
exemption  of  direct  imports,  wouldbe  constitutional,  he  said,  ..  ..  c uld  be 
easily  collected.  This  plan,  it  will  be  observed,  did  not  call  for  discrim- 
inatory taxation  upon  sales  of  Northern  made  goods;  it  would  have  operated  as 

90,  DeBow^  Review,  XVI I,  257. 

91.  IbicU,  XVII,  399;  Savannah  Republican,  Dec. 

92.  Phillips,  Georgia  and  jt_ate  Ri.yts,  183, 

, a . vytt  in?  ff  Tbe  letter  was  dated,  Washington,  Ga., 

93,  DeBow *s  Review,  XXII,  102  ri.  me 

Dec.  6,  18  56.  


t 


. 


. 


t 


’ 


, 


, 

t 

, i 


« 

. 


175 


hardly  upon  Georgia  manufacturer  as  upon  those  of  .lew  England.  Toomba  •* 

94 

proposal  way  not  widely  endorsed.- 

The  Southern  Commercial  Convention  which  met  at  Richmond,  January  1-56 
adopted  by  acclamation  a resolution  recommending  the  release  of  direct  importa- 
tions fr&m  license  fees.95  About  the  same  time  ex-Covernor  Floyd  introduced 
a bill  in  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  providing  for  an  excise  tax  upon 
goods  brought  into  the  state  for  sale  except  goods  directly  imported  from 
abroad.96  Attacks  ware  made  upon  the  merchants'  license  tax  and  one  tax  on 
sales,  which  were  imposed  both  by  the  state  and  municipal  governments." 

These  taxes  were  said  to  act  as  bounties  to  induce  retail  merchants  to  go 
outside  the  state  to  purchase  their  stocks;  for  if  they  bought  of  home  jobbers 
wno,  in  turn,  bought  of  Virginia  importers,  the  consumers  paid  the  taxes 
three  times,  wher««if  the  retailers  bought  in  states  where  no  such  taxes 
were  levied  the  consumers  paid  the  taxes  only  once.9«  The  finance  committee 
of  the  House  of  Delegates  was  dominated  by  the  planting  interests  of  the  tide- 
water region,  and  proposals  for  tax  reform  met  little  favor,"  A provision 
was,  however,  included  in  the  tax  bill  of  1856  allowing  the  importing  merchant 
a deduction  from  the  amount  of  sales  on  which  he  paid  license  tax  equal  to  tne 
value  of  the  goods  imported  6y  him  plus  the  dutieo  puii  ux°“ 

94.  Savannah  Republican.  Dec.  22,  25,  1856,  quoting  other  journals. 

95,  DeB ow1^  Review,  XX,  351. 

96.  Richmond  Enquirer,  Feb.  16,  20,  Mar.  14,  1’ 

97.  Ibid.,  Marc fo  2,  5,  1856,  letters  signed  "Junius." 

98,  DeBow’g  Review,  XX,  623;  ibid . , XX  , ill,  . ore°the 

President  of  the  Central  Southern  kigHts  Associate n of  -a  > 

General  Assembly. 

, . t w on  i A So  Ra-oort  the  Finance  Committee, 

99,  Richmond  inquirer,  Feb.  20,  21,  l*bo, 

Muscoe  R.H,  Garnett,  Chairman. 

ICO.  Acts  of  ^General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  > act  of  Jan.  , l-°- 

A similar  provision  was  in  the  tax  act  of  Mar.  30,  1 oO. 


, 


' 


■ . 


‘ 


.....  I 


This  was  not  a very  considerable  concession;  for  a sales  tax  upon  imported 
good3  sold  in  the  original  packages  was  unconstitutional. 

At*tr  Harper's  Ferry,  October,  1889,  the  Central  Southern  Rights 
Association  of  Virginia  became  active  again.102  In  a memorial  to  the  General 
Assembly  it  presented  commercial  independence  as  the  "means  of  remedy  and 
redress"  for  the  grievances  of  the  South.  The  memorialists  asxed  that  the 
pilot  fees  be  decreased  upon  vessels  owned  in  Virginia  and  upon  vessels  from 
foreign  nations  and  increased  upon  northern  vessels  engaged  in  the  coasting 
trade.  They  would  give  bounties  for  direct  importations  of  goods  most  needed 
witnin  the  state.  They  recommended  that  importing  merchants  be  reimbursed 
for  duties  paid  and  exempted  altogether  <roo  the  license  tax.-''  In  response 
to  the  memorial  the  House  of  Delegates  passed  a bill  exempting  direct  impcrua- 
tion  from  all  sales  taxes.  It  was  defeated  in  the  Senate,  largely  oy  the 
voters  of  members  from  districts  having  the  largest  slave  population.--'*  An 
act  of  February  29,  1880  exempted  vessels  four-fifths  owned  in  Virginia  from, 
the  payment  of  pilot  fees.105  But  so  difficult  was  it  to  secure  fostering 
legislation  that  an  enactment  ambitiously  entitled  an  "Act  to  Encourage 
Direct  Foreign  Trade"  provided  only  for  the  exemption  of  Virginia  flour  from 

the  small  inspection  fees,  if  exported  in  ships  four-fifths  owned  in  Virginia 

In  other  Southern  states  legislation  similar  to  that  proposed  in  Georgia 

and  Virginia  was  advocated.  Louisiana  by  act  of  the  legislature,  March  1'  , 
1.852,  offered  a bonus  of  five  dollars  per  ton  for  every  ship  of  over  one 

101.  Brown  vs.  Maryland,  12  Vlheaton,  419;  DeBo^  Review , XXVIII,  177. 

102.  Ibid.,  XXVIII,  356-7. 

103.  Ibid.,  XXVIII,  173-132.  Cf.  ibid.,  XXViil,  314-324,  "Argymenl-jf 

D,  H,  London  before  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  ) x .£££.*,  ; * 

"Commercial,  Agricultural,  and  Intellectual  Independence  of  the  South,  oy 

D.ri, London. 


104.  De3ow’s  Review,  XXIX,  471,  472. 
Assembly  q~T~V Ir gin ia , iff 59- 6 0 , p.  145. 

106.  Ibid. , 167,  act  of  Mar.  31,  1*60. 


105.  Acts  of  the  General 


• • •t.rv 


■ - « 

' ' • : 


‘ 


177 


hundred  tons  built  in  the  state.'LC/  There  was  sentiment  in  the  state  for  the 

extension  of  aid  in  a similar  manner  to  other  industries.-'^  Tne  Alabama 

legislature  exempted  the  sale  of  all  foreign  goods  directly  imported  into  the 

10S 

Southern  states  from  any  description  of  state,  county,  or  city  taxation. 

South  Carolina  exempted  goods  imported  in  vessels  owned  in  the  scare  from 
taxation  while  in  the  hands  of  the  importers.-'"  In  Mississippi  discrimina- 
tory taxation  was  advocated  doth  as  a means  of  retaliation  against  Northern 
aggression  and  of  promoting  direct  trade  and  developing  manufactures.111  In 
Tennessee  there  was  discussion  of  the  desirability  of  liberalizing  the  tax 

laws.112  Tennessee  and  South  Carolina  appropriated  money  in  aid  of  mechanics* 

, . + 113 

institutes  whose  purpose  was  to  encourage(manufactures  and  the  mechanic  ar.s. 

The  legislatures  of  North  Carolina.  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  Arkansas  took  a 
first  step  toward  developing  the  mineral  resources  of  those  states  by  providing 

.for  geological  surveys,-1"* 

AS  far  as  principles  and  theories  are  concerned,  it  was  not  a very  tar 
cry  from  the  advocacy  of  fostering  commerce  and  industry  by  discriminatory 
taxation  or  by  granting  bounties  and  drawbacks,  to  the  advocacy  of  the  exten- 
sion of  public  credit  or  of  capital  in  aid  of  steamship  lines  to  Europe  or 
other  enterprises.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  Southern  commercial  con- 
ventions. even  those  in  which  most  was  said  about  free  trade,  were  constantly 

107.  Acts  of  the.  legislature,  of  the  Spate  of  12S*  **  Mt 

was  somewhat  modified  three  years  later.  Act  of  ar.  is,  - 

108.  New  Orleans  Picayune,  Jan.  17.  1858;  Kettell.  Soutnern  Jealtn  and 
Northern  Profit 3.  66. 

v.f.r  nr  r t /.ft o ii  n.  Richmond  ^nauirer,  Mar.  24,  1 ' 34, 

109.  DeBow’a  Review.  XXVIII,  492.  J-LW*  ^ 

Mar,  5,  l^Jol  ~ L.  • Charleston  Mercury;.,  Nov.  24,  1859, 

111.  DeBow’s  Review,  XXIX,  

Message  of  Governor  McWillie  of  Mississippi,  Nov.  . 

112.  Republican  Banner  and,  Nashville  VVni^,  Oct.  o,  l-oo, 

Governor  Andrew  J ohnson. 

113.  DeBov;^  Rev  iew,  XXIX,  499. 

114.  Ibid.,  XXIV,  403  ff.;  XVIII,  677  ff;  XXVII,  3oO. 


» 


" 


* 

t 


1 

5 


( 

. ■ 


. 


* 


s * 


17ft 


calling  upon  the  state  governments,  and,  far  that  matter,  the  Federal  govern- 
ment, to  grant  financial  aid  to  projects  for  promoting  the  objects  of  the 
conventions.  And,  in  relation  to  laiasez  fa  ire  and  free  trade  doctrines, 

what  shall  be  said  of  state  and  municipal  aid  to  railroads  and  other  internal 

115 

improvements?  Every  Southern  state  lent  aid  to  internal  improvements. 

Virginia  was  almost  bankrupt  by  her  loans.  After  1852  Tennessee  extended  aid  to 
the  extent  of  $ft,000  per  mile  to  every  mile  of  railroad  built  within  her 
limits.116  Georgia,  in  addition  to  aiding  the  construction  of  other  roads, 
built,  owned,  and  operated  a railroad  from  Atlanta  to  the  Tennessee  line,  near 

H7 

Chattanooga.  North  Carolina  followed  a very  liberal  policy.  So,  also, 

did  Louisiana  and  Mississippi.  Texas  offered  liberal  grants  of  public  lands, 

By  no  means  last  in  the  extent  of  financial  aid  to  internal  improvements 
wae  that  free  trade  state.  South  Carolina,  No  city  in  the  South  voted  more 
money  to  further  the  construction  of  railroads  than  did  Charleston. 

State  aid  to  internal  improvements  met  with  opposition  in  the  South, itis five 
but  the  alignment  upon  the  question  by  no  means  coincided  with  the  alignment 
upon  the  tariff,  Federal  aid  to  internal  improvements,  Federal  subsidies  and 
bounties,  although  there  ms  a tendency  in  that  direction.  In  Virginia  the 
Democratic  party  was  in  power  when  the  immense  debt  was  contracted  for  aiding 
railroads,  turnpikes,  and  other  internal  improvements.  in  North  Carolina  the 
Democrats  were  in  power  when  aid  to  railroads  -was  voted  upon  the  largest  scale; 

115.  It  is  impossible  to  develop  this  subject  here.  For  ^^Hevlew 
see  Million,  J.W.  State  Aid  to  Railroads,  in  Missouri,  cn.  VI,  P.eBowj.  SgJibi, 

3ft6-ft9. 

116.  The  Commissioner  of  Railroads  reported  in  October  1857  that  the 
state  obligations  to  railroads  were  about  116,000,000.  Hunt  js.  ttercr&n^ 
Magazine,  XXXVXIX,  243, 

117.  The  rqilroad  debt  of  North  Carolina  in  i860  was  *ft, 833, oOo. 

DeBow  *s  Review.  XXIX,  245. 


' 


. 


. 


l , , ■ 

5 ’ 


• • « 


■ 

1 


. < t 


17S 


in  fact,  after  1848  the  Democratic  party  wag  recognized  aa  being  more  favorable 
to  the  policy  of  state  aid  than  the  Whig,  Texas,  Mississippi,  and  Arkansas  were 
overwhelmingly  Democratic  during  the  fifties;  yet  all  had  internal  improve- 
ment programs,  Alabama,  partly  because  of  her  peculiar  geographical  diversions, 
lent  no  aid  to  railroads  and  not  a great  deal  to  any  form  of  improvements;  but 
there  was  a strong  sentiment  for  state  aid.  In  1855  a nearly  defunct  Whig 
party  almost  won  the  state  election  by  raising  the  issue.  ' ^ Mobile  lent 
heavily  to  the  construction  of  the  Mobile  and  Ohio  irail*  road. 

The  sum  total  of  protective  legislation  enacted  in  the  South,  either  in 
the  form  of  discriminatory  taxation  upon  Northern  goods,  exemption  of  home 
manufactures  and  direct  imports  from  state  taxation,  or  in  the  form  of 
bounties,  was  small.  The  fact  cannot,  however,  be  taken  without  qualification 
a3  due  to  the  prevalence  of  free  trade  opinions.  Discriminatory  taxation 
was  advocated  as  a mode  of  retaliation  for  the  aggressions  of  the  North  a3  well 
as  a measure  of  political  economy.  It  was  a remedy  decidedly  unfriendly  to 
the  North,  subversive  of  one  of  the  primary  purposes  of  the  const  it  ut  ion,  and 
likely  to  disturb  the  peace  between  the  sections  and  lead  to  disunion.  It  was 
extremely  doubtful  that  laws  could  be  so  framed  as  not  to  be  held  in  violation 
of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and,  for  that  matter,  the  const itution3  of  some 
of  the  Southern  states.  Such  measures  were  opposed  by  moderate  men  who  were 
trying  to  allay  sectional  feeling  rather  than  aggravate  it;  a3  well  as  by 
bona  fide  free  traders  who  might  have  oeen  content  with  their  political 
signif icance,  Furtnermore,  measures  of  discriminatory  taxation  or  of  non- 
intercourse would  have  been  unsuccessful  unless  taken  in  concert  by  a number 
of  states.  Charleston  and  Savannah,  for  example,  were  rivals  for  much  the 
3ame  territory;  discriminatory  taxation  in  one  state  and  nothin  the  others 

118,  DuBo3e,  Life  and  T iir.es  of  Yancey,  311, 


■ ' ■■  ' , 


. 


' 


■ 


< 


« 


180 


119 

might  have  put  the  cities  upon  unequal  terms. 

State  and  local  encouragement  of  desired  industries  by  loans,  bounties,  and 
tax  exemptions  were  not  objectionable  from  the  political  standpoint;  though  their 
efficacy  may  be  doubted.  That  they  were  not  aaployed  to  a greater  extent  was 
partly  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Southern  people  put  the  building  of  internal 
improvements  first  in  their  programs  for  developing  the  South.  Taxes  had  to  be 
increased  to  meet  the  growing  expenditures  on  their  account;  and  the  people  of 
the  South  were  not  accustomed  to  heavy  taxation.  In  the  case  of  manufactures 
and  mining,  there  was  no  considerable  class  directly  and  primarily  interested 
in  securing  protective  legislation.  The  influence  of  directly  interested 
parties  was  further  lessened  because  they  were  generally  Northern  men  or 
foreigners.  State  legislatures  were  too  frequently  controllei  by  professional 
politicians,  and  their  time  monopolized  by  consideration  of  national  issues 
and  policies  to  the  sacrifice  of  state  interests. 

Only  one  degree  removed  from  the  proposals  to  encourage  industry  and 
commerce  by  legislation  were  the  innumerable  pleas  addressed  to  the  people  to 
patronize  home  industries  and  enterprises,  to  buy  Southern  made  in  preference 
to  Northern  made  goods,  to  purchase  from  southern  jobbers  and  importers  rather 
than  from  Northern,  to  hire  Southern  teachers  and  mechanics  wherever  possible, 
to  use  school  books  published  in  the  South,  to  patronize  home  literature,  to 
cease  sending  their  youth  to  Northern  colleges,  to  visit  Southern  rather  than 
Northern  pleasure  resorts.  Every  one  of  these  pleas  asked  the  individual, 
either  directly  or  by  implication,  to  sacrifice  his  own  immediate  profit  or 
preference  to  the  supposed  public  good.  And  all  admitted  the  propriety  of 
appeals  for  patronage  of  home  industry.  Every  Southern  commercial  convention. 

119.  C.  G.  Memminger,  Commissioner  to  Virginia,  in  an  address  to  the^ 
Virginia  legislature,  1860.  DeBow*  s Review,  XXIX,  768.  Also  in  Capers,  Life 
and  Times  of  Ileraninger.  241  ff. 


■ 


181 

when  the  members  could  not  agree  upon  more  effective  plans  for  promoting  its 

objects,  fell  back  upon  resolutions  appealing  to  the  people  to  patronize  home 

enterprises;  for  upon  such  resolutions  all  could  agree. 

There  were  many,  indeed,  in  the  South  who  believed  patronage  of  hone 

industry  to  be  the  most  efficacious  means  for  achieving  economic  independence. 

An  associate  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  Alabama  said  the  efforts  mace  to 

promote  direct  trade  and  manufactures  had  begun  at  the  wrong  end.  Tne  demands 

for  the  goods  should  be  created  first,  and  the  steamship  lines  and  factories 

would  follow.  Let  the  people  resolve  to  buy  nothing  made  or  grown  i»  the 

North  if  they  could  buy  a substitute  made  or  grown  elsewhere;  let  them 

resolve  to  buy  nothing  imported  into  a Northern  port  if  they  could  buy  a 

1 20 

substitute  imported  into  a Southern  port.  a let.er  of  a uha risss.on 

mercantile  house  expressed  the  opinion  that  little  could  be  effected  by  legis- 
lative enactments  "as  long  as  we  are  in  the  Union":  a non- intercourse  law 
would  be  a dead  letter,  and  bounties  upon  goods  of  direct  importation  would  not 
result  in  any  large  increase  in  importations.  Wfrat  was  necessary  was  a determine- 
tion  on  the  part  of  the  people  to  patronise  Southern  merchants.121  There  was 
much  impatien  ce  with  the  magnificent  schemes  which  some  tne  n,  particularly 
in  the  Southern  Commercial.  Convention,  were  bringing  forward  for  achieving  the 
regeneration  of  the  South;  and  the  advice  was  given  to  pay  more  attention  to 
little  things.  "Creat  steamships,  and  grand  expansions,  and  magnificent 
speeches  will  do  well  enough,  but  there  are  little  things,  and  a thousand  of 
them,  too,  which  might  hate  a little  attention,  and  perhaps  lead  to  some  small 

advantages.  Could  there  not  be  some  purpose,  some  real  resolution,  to  encoui- 

122 

age  not  only  by  precept  but  by  example  a little  horse  industry.” 

120,  DeBow's  Review,  XXIX,  105  St  • 

121*  Ibid.,  XXV III,  599. 

122.  Ibid.,  XXIV,  573  (taken  frorc  a Virginia  paper  }, 


' 


< 

< 


182 


Gre rrg,  protectionist  though  he  was,  put  3out her n patronage  of  Southern 

imports  and  domestic  industry  foremost  as  a measure  for  promoting  direct  trade 

and  manufactures.1""  He  suggested  the  formation  of  societies  and  cluos  ter 

practicing  and  preaching  patronage  of  home  industries.1""4  He  charged  that 

M . 125 

the  people  preferred  Northern  made  articles  because  they  were  Northern  made. 

Women  did  not  consider  themselves  in  fashion  unless  their  clothing  came  from 
New  York.  There  was  "a  rage  for  cheap  Yankee  goods.”  Merchants  who  handled 
Southern  made  goods  had  to  conceal  their  origin.  The  failure  of  so  many 
Southern  cotton  factories  during  the  hard  years  following  1849,  he  attributed. 

■y 

largely  to  the  want  of  home  patronage. 

Gregg  was  net  alene  in  his  complaints.  Fifty-eight  Charleston  importing 

and  jobbing  houses  rar.  an  advertisement  in  the  papers  in  the  form  of  an 
address  to  the  merchants  of  the  South  end  Southwest.  They  urged  their  claims 
for  the  patronage  and  custom  of  merchants  of  the  interior,  and  begged  them,  to 
"lay  aside  the  prejudice  (for  it  is  only  a prejudice)  that  your  customers  prefer 
goods  from  New  York  to  those  from  Charleston  Norfolk  merchants  aov.r- 

tised  goods  as  "just  from  the  North. "12“  The  plaint  was  made  that  "The  very 
men  who  most  vehemently  abuse  the  Yankees  and  their  humbugs,  are  generally  the 
first  to  contradict  their  own  doctrines  — ."  Tne  city  council  c,  Charleston 
sent  to  Troy.  New  York  , for  a fire  alarm  bell,  although  one  could  be  procured 

Q 

at  home.  Charleston  mechanics  were  greatly  aroused  over  the  incident. 

Individuals  protested  against  the  continual  harping  upon  Southern  dependence; 
instead  of  advertising  weaknesses  they  proposed  to  tell  of  pos-e3si  ns  and 
possibilities.  Occasionally  journals  of  the  Southern  Rights  persuasion  declared 

123.Wir.Gregg,  "Southern  Patronage  to  Southern  Imports  and  Domestic  Industry/ 

in  t0  l?s.  lel\ specially  ibid..  XXIX,  62b, 77b. 

126.  Ibid. , XXX,  1C2.  127.  Charleston  Mercury,  Dec,  1 - , 1*^- 

128.  W,  5,  Forest,  Sketches  o f Norfolk,  410. 

129.  Charleston  Mercury,  June  1,  1858. 


•• 


* 


. * i 


. 


. 


t I i • 

< 


* • 

< 


183 

their  desire  to  publish  only  Southern  advertising  matter*  The  results  were 
disappointing;  their  c olumn/  continued  to  be  filled  with  Northern  advertising. 

DeBow  rather  bitterly  remarked  that  he  was  convinced  the  South  had  nothing  to 

130 

sell.  These  constant  appeals  to  individuals  to  patronise  home  industries 

and  home  importing  merchants  were  unobj 6ctionaole,  out  could  not  De  otherwise 
than  ineffectual  except,  possibly,  during  snort  periods  of  great  excitement 
of  the  public  mind. 

After  the  J ohn  Brown  Raid  at  Harper's  Ferry  a det  errcinat  ion  was  expressed 
on  all  sides  to  practice  stern  and  uncompromising  non-intercourse  with  the 
North  as  the  best  means  of  silencing  the  abolitionists  end  teaching  the  North 
the  money  value  of  the  Union.  The  governors  of  several  states  recommended 
throwing  Southern  ports  open  to  the  world  and  levying  high  excise  taxes  upon 
Northern  made  goods.  The  1 egis-latures  of  Virginia  and  Tennessee  adopted 
resolutions  pledging  the  enactment  of  effective  measures  of  retaliation. ^1 
Southern  travel  in  the  North  fell  off.  Many  Northern  teachers  and  agents  were 
driven  Ixom.the  South,  Occasional  business  firms  cancelled  orders  for  Northern 
goods.  Northern  firms  reported  a falling  off  in  their  Southern  business,  and 
the  business  interests  of  the  Northern  states  became  alarmed.  “ Citizens  of 
Baltimox-e  hastened  to  declare  Baltimore  ready  to  take  the  place  of  more 
northern  cities  as  a commercial  center  for  the  South. I33  Southern  men  did  not 
fail  to  note  that  the  ill  feeling  between  the  sections  operated  a3  a form  of 
protection  to  home  industries.  Let  non- intercourse  be  esxablished,  and  how 
easy  it  wouU  be  for  Georgia  to  supply  half  of  the  Southern  states  with  planta- 
tion goods  such  as  she  now  manufact ured."^  Merchants  were  advised  to  tane 

1 3 C 

advantage  of  the  excited  state  of  the  public  mind  to  establish  direct  trade. 

130.  DeBow 's  Review.  XXII,  555,  556;  XXVIII,  123,  4S3. 

131.  DeBow '3  Review.  XXIX,  559.  132.  Charleston  Mercury , Dec.  29,  (f5 '1/ 

quoting  the  Boston  Commercial  Bulletin;  Wolfe,  Helper's  imps  ndlr.g  Crisis 
Dissected.  128  ff,  164-6,  quoting  Northern  papers. 

133 . DeBow 's  Review.  XXVIII,  331,  quoting  the  Baltimore  Prices  Current . 

134,  Wolfe,  Helper 's  Impending  Crisis  Dissected . 129. 

13  5.  DeBow 's  Review.  XXX.  223. 


- • *J 

I 


i 


■ , 


- 


t 


‘ « 


' ' ’ 


1 . « 

I 


1*4. 


The  ^outh  produced  no  Horace  Greeleys  or  Henry  C,  Carpys;  but  a discussion 
of  free  trade  versus  protection  in  the  South  would  be  incomplete  without 
mention  of  George  Fitzhugh,  of  Virginia,  a lawyer  by  profession,  he  took  up 
his  pen,  about  1*50,  to  defend  the  South  and  slavery.  He  proved  himself  a bold, 
ingenious,  learned,  and  prolific,  though  qjdte  eccentric  and  erratic  writer. 

The  South  conceded  him  a place  alongside  Dew,  Harper,  Hammond,  and  Strinffellow, 
as  a Southern  apologist.  With  his  defense  of  slavery  and  his  attack  upon  free 
society  with  its  exploitation  of  labor  by  capital,  we  are  not  here  directly 
concerned.  Although  not  consistently,  he  was  generally  aligned  with  those  who 
believed  the  South  should  diversify  industry,  build  up  cities  and  towns, 
construct  internal  improvements,  and  conduct  her  own  commerce.  He  was  par- 
ticularly interested  in  improving  Southern  education  both  secondary  ana 
primary,  and  in  developing  Southern  literature  and  “Southern  tnought." 

L_ais3ez  fa  ire  undeclared  the  world  “too  little  governed." 

Fitzhugh  believed  in  small  nations.  He  repeatedly  depicted  the  evils  of 

centralization,  not  only  of  government  but  also  of  commerce,  industry,  finances, 

literature.  He  dedicated  his  Cannibals  All  to  the  Honorable  Henry  A.  Wise, 

because  "I  am  acquainted  with  no  one  ...  who  has  seen  so  clearly  the  evils  of 

centralization  from  without,  and  worked  so  earnestly  to  cure  or  avert  those 

arils,  by  building  up  centralization  within. "136  And  cent realization  witnout 

he  declared  to  be  the  "daughter  of  that  Southern  goddess,  Free  Trade."  Tns 

137 

free  traders  were  old  fogies,  "sitting  like  an  incubus  on  the  South." 
aisease  under  which  the  South  suffered  was  free  trade  - free  trade  with  the 
North.  The  protect  ion  Fitzhugh  demanded  was  against  the  north,  not 
Europe.  He  agreed  with  Southern  free  traders  that  a protective  tariff  imposed 

136.  Cannibals  All  or  Slaves.  WithoHl  Richmond  1*57.  In  addition 

to  this  work  Fitzhugh  wrote,  "Sociology  for  the  south,  or  the  Fa^liu_e,  of  gree 
Societies;  Slavery  Justified,  (pamphlet  1849);  and  numerous  articles  for 
DeBow’s  Review  and  other  periodicals.  _ ___ 

137.  DeBoWs  Review,  XXVI,  659,  662.  Sociology  for  the  South,-Phs.  _-Xlv. 


by  the  Federal  government  would  be  unconst  itutional.  He  t nought  a revenue 
tariff  afforded  ample  incidental  protection  against  foreign  nations;  it  was 
sufficient  to  enable  the  North  to  almost  monopolize  the  Southern  market.  «lnen 
the  results  of  the  elections  of  1*5*  threatened  the  enactment  of  a protective 
tariff,  he  suggested  that  state  protection  could  neutralize,  and  "peaceably 
and  lawfully  nullify  federal  protection,"  Fitzhugh  would  not  wait  for  the 
South  to  unite  upon  measures  of  protection,  but  have  each  state  tane  sucn 
individual  action  as  it  saw  fit.*3*  When  non- intercourse  was  suggested,  ne 
espoused  it.  "Disunion  within  the  Union,"  as  he  termed  it,  would  "lead  at  once 
to  direct  trade  - - encourage,  promote  and  build  up,  .Southern  commerce,  man- 
ufactures, agriculture,  education,  etc."  and  make  the  South  independent  .at 
the  same  time  it  was  bringing  the  abolition'^  terms.13'  He  considered  dis- 
union to  be  a measure  that  would  put  an  end  to  free  trade  vhith  the  North;  but 
as  late  as  the  middle  of  1*59,  at  least,  was  inclined  to  prefer  the  "State 
protection  of  taxing  system"  because  it  was  "safer  than  disunion,  equally 
efficient,  and,"  so  he  said,  "involves  no  breach  of  the  constitution."140 

It  did  not  escape  Fitzhugh  »s  notice  that  the  South  had  largely  abandoned, 
if  sne  had  ever  practiced  it,  her  let-alone  policy.  "For  twenty  year’s  pasx," 
he  said,  "the  South  has  been  busy  protecting.,  encouraging/ and  diversifying 
Southern  industrial  pursuits,  Soutnern  skill,  commerce,  education,  etc." 
Fitzhugh  was  not  far  from  the  truth  when  he  said:  "The  South  has  not  only 
adopted  the  protection  policy,  but,  strange  to  say,  the  editors,  legislators, 
®G  statesmen,  who  are  loudest  in  professing  free  trade  doctrines,  are, 

137.  DeBow's  Review,  XXVI,  659,  662  . „ _ 

13*.  Fitzhugh  's  views  upon  state  protection  are  concisely  set  forth 
article  "State  Rights  end  State  Remedies",  DeBow^  Review,  XXV  697-703. 

139,  Ibid.,  XXVIII,  7,  article  entitled  "Disunion  Within  tne  axoa% 

140,  Ibid. , XXVI,  661. 


invariably,  the  warmest  advocates  of  exclusive  and  protective  state  legislation. 
And  there  me,  also,  a measure  of  truth  in  the  statement:  "Soutnern  commercial 
conventions  are  composed  of  this  class  of  men.  who  are  actively  at  work  in 
endeavoring  to  encourage,  direct,  and  central,  Southern  pursuits,  by  legisla- 
tion and  all  other  feasible  means  while  they  profess  to  be  fiar  excellence. 

free  trade  men 


141 , DeBow  *3  Rev lew,  XXV , 6^-7 01 . 


CHAPTER  VII 


The  Relation  of  Sconomi o Pi scontent  to  the  pi suni on 
Movement^  1852  - I860* 

After  the  defeat  of  the  disunion  movement  of  1850-1851,  the  disunionists 
were  comparatively  quiet  for  a few  years.  The  struggles  over  slavery  were 
temporarily  abated.  All  parties  seemed  to  turn  with  more  or  less  earnestness 
to  efforts  to  see  vh ether  something  could  not  be  done  in  an  organized  way  to 
hasten  the  economic  and  social  progress  of  the  South — a policy  viiich  Unionists 
had  earlier  supported  as  a substitute  for  disunion.  It  was  during  this  short 
period  that  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  was  instituted,  and  went  about 
its  work  with  a hope  of  accomplishing  results.  Meanwhile,  however,  the  Southern 
Rights  wing  strengthened  its  control  of  the  reunited  Democratic  party.  In  doing 
this  it  was  aided  materially  by  the  Pierce  administration.  In  his  distribution 
of  the  patronage  Pierce  tried  to  conciliate  t he  Southern  Rights  faction  and 
failed  to  recognize  the  more  conservative  element.  He  submitted  himself  largely 
to  the  guidance  of  the  radical  Southern  leaders  in  the  formulation  of  policies. 
Meanwhile,  too,  the  Whig  party  began  to  dissolve. 

In  1854  theiull  in  the  quarrel  over  slavery  was  rudely  interrupted  by  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise— the  motives  of  which  we  shall  not  pause  to 
discuss.  The  repeal  served  as  the  occasion  for  the  organization  of  a sectional 
party  in  the  North;  which  in  turn  reacted  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  ex- 
tremists in  the  South.  The  Kansas  troubles  and  the  presidential  campaign  of 
1856  with  its  threat  of  the  election  of  the  candidate  of  a sectional  party, 
called  forth  again  threats  of  disunion,  and  once  more  the  subject  was  canvassed 
in  all  its  aspects.  Prom  this  time  on  little  reserve  was  shown  in  expressing 
disunion  sentiments. 

The  session  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  held  in  Savannah  a 
month  after  the  election  showed  unmistakably  the  growth  of  disunion  sentiment, 
and  proved  to  be  the  last  controlled  by  the  conservative  element: 


'i  •: 

' 


• ' 


■ 


* 

r 


* 


- ... 


Its  successors  were 


little  more  than  gatherings  of  disunions  ts.  A large  pro- 


portion of  representative  newspapers  of  the  South,  especially  or  the  cotton 
states,  openly  and  almost  constantly  advocated  disunion.  Tne  Richmond  ^uirer^ 
in  the  summer  of  1857,  complained  that  the  Charleston  LgrcupL  "does  nothing  from 
year's  end  to  year's  end  but  to  announce  the  speedy  dissolution  of  the  Jnion?1 
Amcng  others  scarcely  less  open  in  their  advocacy  of  disunion  were,  not  to  men- 
tion South  Carolina  journals,  tne  Richmond  Examiner,  Roger  A.  Pryor's  Richmond 
The  Columbus  (Georgia)  Corner  Stone,  the  Mobile  Register,  tne  Mobile 
Mercury,  the  Montgomery  Advertiser  and  Gazette,  The  New  Orleans  Crescejrt,  the 
Mew  Orleans  Delta,  the  Vicssburg  True  Southron,  and  the  (Mjmcnis  Appeal.  J.  . . B 
De Bow  had  by  this  time  become  an  avowed  disunionist,  and  DeBow. 9 
disunionist  in  the  whole  tendency  of  its  teaching.  The  Review  nad  some  quite 
able  writers  among  its  contributors,  nad  won  for  itself  a considerable  circula- 
tion and  much  prestige,  and  exercised  great  influence  in  the  South,  "ne  avowed 
secessionists  in  Congress  nad  grown  to  a considerable  group,  including  Miles, 
Keitt,  and  Bonham,  of  South  Carolina,  Iverson,  of  Georgia,  Roger  A.  Pryor,  o'  Vir- 
ginia, John  A,  Quitman,  J.  J .McRae,  Reuben  Davis,  and  Barksdale, of  Mississippi, 

C.  0.  Clay  and  J.L.  Pugh.of  Alabama,  and  Wigfall.of  Texas.  Many,  who  die  not 
publicly  avow  themselves  secessionists  were  known  to  lean  strongly  in  that  di- 
rection. Outside  of  Congress  were  dozens  of  men  of  reputation  and  influence, 
most  conspicuous  of  wnom  was  William  Lowndes  Yancey,  of  Alabama,  wno  devoted  their 
best  energies  and  ••gleet  ed  no  opportunities  to  advance  the  cause  of  disunion. 
Chiefly  through  juolic  agitationW  discussion,  tut  also  through  the  later  meet- 
ings of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  2 througn  private  conferences,  and 
through  the  wide  correspondence  carried  on  by  various  individuals,  - acre 

h)  Aucust  13  (2)  t-Hmimd  Ruffin's  Diary  gjve3  a good  understanding  of 

the  way  in  which  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  “ide  fror  thc  term  me  • 
ings,  wasjus  ed  to  promote  the  cause.  (Entries  covering  tne  .ession  a.  - ontgome  ., 
wnich  Ruffin  attended.) 


« 


1 

. 


' 


v« 


1*9 


unsuccessful  attempts  were  made  at  organisation*5  — the  disunionist  leaders  xn 
the  several  states  became  acquainted  with  each  other,  came  to  have  a good  under- 
standing of  the  state  of  public  sentiment  in  all  quarters  of  tne  South,  and 

strove  to  approacn  an  agreement  in  regard  to  tne  oroper  policies  to  oe  - ursued. 

Disunionists  frankly  expressed  their  hope  tnat  a pretext  could  oe  found 

5 

which  would  precipitate  the  cotton  states  into  a revolution.  ~neir  desire  to 

maxe  an  issue  in  part  explains  tne  agitation  for  repealing  the  laws  agains  the 

foreign  slave  trade.  When  tne  Southern  members  in  Congress  compromised  tne 
Kansas  question,  in  April,  1*58,  by  accepting  tne  English  bill,  several  rromi- 
nent  disunionists  expressed  tneir  disappointment  that  an  issue  nad  not  oeen 
made. " Finally  the  issue  was  presented  when,  largely  through  the  agency  of 
the  disunionists,  the  Democratic  party  was  split  in  twain  ax  Charleston  ana 
Baltimore,  and  the  triumph  of  a sectional  party  made  inevitable. 

The  discussion  of  disunion  during  the  several  years  preceding  tne  actual 
launcning  of  the  experiment  left  no  phase  of  the  subject  untouched.  Every  pos- 
sible angle  of  the  question  was  explored  — the  ability  of  the  Southern  n ■ 63 
to  support  a separate  government ; the  probability  of  tneir  being  premised  to 
secede  without  war;  the  attitude  the  border  states  would  take  in  case  tne  cot- 

13)  League  of  United  Southerners.  Hodgson,  Cradle  of.  IHS. 

396:DuBose,  Life  and  Times  of  Yancey.  377;  Cnarieston  _ercj£r^,  Aug.  1 5 » 
Montgomery  Daily  Confederation.  May  21,  1*59,  quoting  an  editorial  m tne  - o- 

bile  Mercury;  De oow *s  Review.  XXV,  250.  . . 

(4)  In  a letter  to  Roger  A.  Pryor,  Yancey  said  he  did  not  expect  Virginia 
to  take  the  initiative.  "Her  position  as  a border  state,  and  a well  considered 
Southern  policy  - (a  policy  wnich  has  been  digested  and  understood  ana  appro  ed 
by  some  of  the  aolest  men  in  Virginia,  as  you  yourself  must  be  aware,  - would 
seem  to  demand  that,  when  such  movement  taxes  place  by  any  considerable  nurnoer 
of  Soutnern  States,  Virginia..  ..should  remain  in  the  Union:'  Hodgson, ..oe..  ?it^y 

397 ; National  Intelligencer.  Sept.  4,  1*5*.  . „ , „ .+ 

(5)  W.  L.  Yancey  to  James  3.  Slaughter,  June  15,  1*5*,  in  Hodgson,  - £. 

393;  Dubose,  Yancey . 376.  „ . ^ 

(6)  Yancey  to  Thos.  J.  Orme,  May  22,  1*5*,  in  Montgomery  igail^  Confedera- 

tion. June  5,  1*58;  Du6c3e,  Yancey.  366-75.  M.  L.  Bonham,  of  ooutn  Carolina  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  June  9,  Cong. C-lobe,  35  Cong.,  1 cess.,  Arc*.  5/  -x  . 
A correspondent  of  theCnarleston  Mercury  wrote  of  tne  Southern  Commercial  Con- 
vention at  Montgomery:  "I  have  not  met  a single  man  except  the  Virginians  wno 

approves  the  late  compromise  in  Kansas.'  May  j.  1*5*. 


I 


190 

ton  states  should  secede;  the  most  desirable  boundary  line;  the  division  of  the 
territories;  the  policies  the  new  confederacy  should  pursue  with  respect  to  com- 
merce with  the  North  and  Europe,  the  tariff,  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  j 
the  Pacific  railroad,  immigration,  the  slave  trade,  expansion  of  the  confederacy 
to  the  southward,  and  military  establishment;  the  effect  of  dissolution  upon  tne 
prosperity  and  development  of  the  South  as  a whole  and  of  particular  classes, 
interests,  and  localities. 

The  various  arguments  in  favor  of  disunion  did  not  appeal  with  equal  force 
to  all  disunionists.  Many  emphasized  the  greater  security  of  slavery  in  a 
separate  republic  and  the  freedom  from  the  quarrels  over  slavery,  which  seemed 
interminable  in  the  Union;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  could  the  slavery 
quarrel  have  been  hushed,  and  the  issue  amicably  settled,  disunion  sentiment  would 
never  have  reached  alarming  proportions  or  have  been  translated  into  action. 

Others  were  prone  to  contemplate  the  glories  of  a great  republic  stretching  from 
the  Ohio  to  Panama  and  encircling  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  Others  were  influenced  by 
the  possibility  of  reopening  the  foreign  slave  trade.  Too  many  politicians,  it 
must  be  said,  felt  that  their  political  careers  had  been  blighted  in  the  Union 
and  hoped  for  better  fortune  in  the  narrower  confines  of  a Southern  confederacy. 

But  almost  all  disunionists  believed,  or  professed  to  believe,  that  the  South 
in  the  Union  was  being  exploited  economically  for  the  benefit  of  the  North;  that 
the  Southern  states  had  somehow  become  tributary  provinces  of  the  Northern;  that 
Northern  wealth  largely  represented  the  product  of  Southern  labor;  and  that, 
could  the  Southern  states  but  cut  loose  from  their  Northern  connections  and  De 
permitted  to  work  out  their  own  destiny  in  their  own  way,  their  prosperity  would 

be  greater  and  their  development  quickened. 

The  arguments  advanced  in  support  of  these  propositions  were  similar  to  those 
used  in  1850  and  1851;  but  had  been  modified  to  some  extent  by  circumstances.  Sine 
that  time  there  had  been  much  discussion  of  diversifaction  of  industry  and  de- 
velopment of  varied  resources;  commercial  conventions  had  been  held  and  puolic 


■ 

' 


151 


opinion  educated;  and  various  plans  for  regenerating  the  South  had  been  tried  or 
proposed,  and,  in  general,  h lied.  Whereas  in  the  earl  i A moat  of 

those  who  hoped  for  a diversification  of  Southern  pursuits  had  held  aloof  from 
or  had  opposed  the  disunion  movement,  in  the  latter  many  of  that  class,  -im- 
pairing of  success  in  the  Union,  lent  it  their  support. 

The  doctrine  that  the  South  paid  more  than  her  share  of  the  taxe3  and 
received  leas  than  her  share  of  the  disbursements  had  been  so  frequently  repeated 
that  it  was  becoming  generally  accepted.  One  estimated  at  $50,000,000  the  sue 
the  South  paid  annually,  and  at  U», 000, 000  the  amount  returned  in  the  form,  of 
expenditures;  ieC,000,000  annually  wouldjbe  saved  by  going  out  of  the  Union. 

Sucn  a sum  distributed  among  the  states  would  give  an  enormous  impetus  xo  manu- 
factures and  all  other  branches  of  industry,  which  3Uffered  fr-m  a de  icieucy 
of  capital  in  the  South,  Southern  men  didjkot  cea3e  to  attribute  Southern 
decline  to  unequal  taxation  and  disbursements. 

Direct  trade  with  Europe  would  follow,  it  was  sain,  c^ose-iy  ueo  he ei3 

of  separation;  for  importers  would  never  pay  the  duties  imposed  by  the  North  in 
audition  to  the  moderate  duties  imposed  by  the  Southern  confederacy,  "wixa  a 
horizontal  duty  upon  all  imports  it  would  be  impossible  for  foreign  pr:due'-s  * ■ 
cone  to  us  by  way  of  the  cities  of  the  North. If  necessary,  navigation  laws 
could  be  enacted  discriminating  against  Northern  shipping.  Foreign  ships  would 
flock  to  Southern  p&rts;  Northern  ships  would  be  transferred  to  the  uoutn. 
Northern  seaports  would  decline;  Southern  would  flourish,  * " w 

7.  DeBow  *s  Review.  XXI,  543,  Similar  statements:  Charleston  ’'^ncar^ 

Feb.  25,  1858,  quoting  the  “ebil  v-...  - -^^.XXX»  252i  7 

532.  Speech  of  J.A.  Jones,  of  Ga. , in  Vicksburg,  New  Yorx  riera^  *-*ay  ...  - , - - - • 

8,  John  Forsyth's  Lecture  on  "The  North  and  theSouth"  Mobile,  !8o4  D||owj3 

Review,  XVIII,  36-8-73;  ibid., XIX,  3*3-4;  ibid,,  XXVI,  476  (A. P. Calhoun,  - /» 

ibidT  XXX,  436  (DeBow,  1858);  W. P. Miles,  af  3.C.,  in  House  of  Representatives, 
Kar.  31,  1*58,  Charleston  Mercury.  Apr,  17;  S -> ut hern  L i.te_rarj_  . . e 3 s .en^er,  XaX I , 
23,8;  "Barbarossa”  (John  Scott),'  The.  Lost,  Principle  or^e.^j^nai 

Pt.  1,  Ch.  V;  Cl*  ne,  Life  and  Corre-  , :±  2L  tSILlJ1*  SLiillfbiJU  Ix»  18b»7, 

5.  DeBow '3  Review.  XXI.  543.  __  _ 

10.  Be3oWa  Kevlar,  XXI,  519;  XXV,  373;  XXIII,  504;  Ccjfc.  2i2SS»  ~3  Cn'K- 
1 Sea 3, , 375  (Prestor,  3.  Brooxs.). 


192 


control  of  its  own  commerce,  would  control  tne  "exchanges'*  also;  and  thus  become 
financially  independent.  The  establishment  of  direct  trade  would  give  an  im- 
pulse to  every  other  pursuit:  "Manufacturers  would  then  -row  up,  commerce  wuld 

extend,  mechanical  arts  would  flourisn,  and  in  short,  every  industrial  and  every 
professional  pursuit  would  receive  a vivifying  impulse. 

Of  all  those  who  speculated  in  regard  to  the  proper  policy  of  a new  confeo- 
eracy,  it  is  worthy  of  note,  very  few  proposed  that  the  government  should  be 
supported  witnout  any  resort  to  duties  on  imports.  It  is  true  many  spohe  ot  a 
free  trade  republic,  out  "free  trade"  was  generally  equivalent  to  "tarn t for 
revenue  only."  Almost  all  would  nave  had  low  duties;  but  while  some  xola  now 
low  they  would  be  and  emphasized  tne  blessings  of  free  trade,  0Lner3  a on 

the  incidental  protection  which  would  be  afforded  by  a tariff  for  revenue  only. 
Said  Willoughby  Newton,  a Virginia  di3unionist  of  long  standing:  a tariff  for 

the  s unport  of  the  new  government  would  give  such  protection  to  manufacturers, 
that  all  our  waterfalls  would  orietle  with  machinery."  Men  from  border  states 
were  more  inclined  to  speak  of  the  advantages  of  protection  against  Northern  com 
petition  than  were  men  from  the  cotton  states,  though  the  latter  often  nela  out 
as  an  inducement  to  Virginia  and  Worth  Carolina  to  go  with  the  Gulf  states,  the 
probability  that  they  would  supplant  New  England  in  manufacturing  for  the  South. 
There  were  free  traders,  however,  wno  thought  it  might  oe  well  to  leave  tne 
them  slave  states  out  of  the  confederacy  lest  they  should  demand  protection 
for  their  industries.  Disunionists  believed  that,  in  case  of  separation,  the 
North  would  have  to  resort  to  direct  taxation  to  support  ner  government;  for 
they  would  no  longer  be  able  to  import  on  Southern  account,  and  they  could  not 
tax  imports  from  the  South,  since  they  were  ch'fcly  raw  materials. 

'1.  DeS^w's  Review,  XXIX,  462. 

12.  Ibid,  XXV,  373  (Sept.  1*5*). 

13-  lb  id'.  XXI,  541. 


quence3  of  direct  taxation  would  be  tne  transfer  to  the  South  of  much  caoixal  in- 
vested  in  manufactures. 

The  disunioniete  often  toon  a somewhat  skeptical  attitude  toward  the  efforts 
Which  were  now  being  made  to  promoxe  Southern  commerce  and  industry  while  the 
Union  cominued.  Each  failure  confirmed  their  opinion  that  such  efforts  were  fu- 
tile. The  Charleston  Mercury.  said  that  in  the  Union  "Direct  trade  with  the  cus- 
tomers of  the  South  in  Europe  is  an  impossibility  Norfolk.  Charleston,  sa- 

vannah. Mobile,  are  only  suburbs  of  New  York."  14  According  to  a contributor  to 
DeB,w's  Review  .the  process  of  development  went  or.  much  more  slowly  than  in  the 
North,  and  must  "as  long  as  we  remain  in  the  Union  with  the  North  to  lean  upon/ 
Disunion  would  call  for  and  foster  a variety  of  home  products.  Pride  would  de- 
mand protection  for  hone  industries.  Diversification  would  develop  and  unfold 
the  wealth  of  the  South.  "True,  we  mi^ht,  in  the  course  of  time,  unfold  tnis 
wealth  in  tne  Union,  hut  not  till  the  teeming  North  has  •embellished  all  her 
slopes,'  and  of  her  superabundance  and  for  lack  of  other  lands  xo  conquer,  emp- 
ties ner  surplus  on  us, With  all  these  aids  and  stimulants  we  must  ad- 

vance with  equal  or  faster  steps  than  they."16  A.  J.  Soane,  of  Virginia, 
"Experience  has  demonstrated  that  direct  trade  to  Southern  ports  cannot  be  estab- 
lisned  to  any  consideraole  extent  in  the  Union,  it  can  cnlj— oe  a.,c  oi,.lished  o. 
the  stress  of  the  necessity  which  separation  would  creaxe."  In  • *s**-'*»  vlle 
opinion  was  held  that  in  case  of  disunion  the  "very  necessity  of  her  condition 

of  estrangement  from  the  manufacturing  North  would  impel  her  to  add  a manufac- 

,4 17 

luring  phase  to  her  already  innumerable  sources  of  «alt ru 

As  we  have  seen,  certain  south  Atlantic  ports,  particularly  of  Virginia, 
woich  was  slowly  building  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  railroad,  aspired  to  export  and 
import  for  the  Ohio  and  the  upper  Mississippi  valleys,  andW  nigh  expectations 

14.  May  20,  I*59*  472-474  (Nov.  Ift57).  $f  ibid..  XXI,  177-1*6. 

15.  PeBow  *3  He  v iev:,  XaIH, 

16.  Ibid. , XX U,  463. 

1.  October  23,  mp,  lt.y.H*Z±L£- 


' 


194 


Louisians,  in  his  message  of  January,  1*59,  said:  "The  position  of  the  North- 
western States  of  the  Mississippi  valley,  on  this  question  (slavery)  is  of 
especial  interest  to  us,  These  states  are,  by  geographical  position,  commer- 
cially our  allies,  whether  3lave  or  free,  while  many  of  the  states  on  the 
Atlantic  side  of  the  Alleghanies  arejnecessar ily  hostile  in  commercial  interest.#* 
It  is  cheering  to  find  our  commercial  allies  of  the  Northwest  sustaining  our 
Southern  policy. "20  This  statement  is  accurate  in  no  particular,  ihe  value 
of  the  trade  between  the  West  and  East  was  many  times  greater  than  the  value 
of  the  trade  between  the"  West  and  South.  Not  only  did  most  of  the  foreign 
imports  of  the  West  come  by  way  of  the  East,  but  by  far  the  larger  part  of 
Western  exports  went  that  way.  The  travel  between  Sqst  and  West  was  much 
greater  than  between  South  and  West,  Much  Eastern  capital  was  invested  in  tne 
West,  In  politics,  too,  the  West  and  East  had  been  drawing  closer  together* 

The  tariff  no  longer  divided  them  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  Calhoun.  Both  stood 
for  a liberal  policy  in  regard  to  improvement  of  river3  and  harbors.  Tne  ooutn 
had  abandoned  her  old  liberal  attitude  on  the  public  land3  question,  ana 
steadily  opposed  homestead  bills  and  land  grants  to  railroads;  while  in  some 
quarters  the  old  demand  for  distrioution  was  revived.  The  East,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  inclined  to  support  the  public  lands  policies  of  the  Zest,  On  the 
immigration  question  the  West  agreed  with  the  East  rather  than  with  the  South; 
the  same  was  true  of  the  Pacific  railroad  question.  On  the  paramount  issue  of 
slavery  the  people  of  the  free  states  of  the  Northwest  were  rapidly  losing 
their  old  indifferent  attitude  and  becoming  more  hostile  to  the  institution. 

Along  with  their  pictures  of  the  prosperity  and  progress  which  would 
follow  the  formation  of  an  independent  Southern  confederacy,  disunionists 
frequently  advanced  arguments  to  prove  that  it  would  be  accompanied  oy  no 
countervailing  disadvantages.  Secession  would  be  peaceful,  they  said,  because 
20.  New  Orleans  Daily  True  Delta,  Jan.  19,  1^59, 


t 


' 


. 


. 


fe 

. 

■ 

, ■ - ' ' 4 t 


196 

there  was  great  suffering,  threatening  mobs , and  sanguinary  riots  in  the  Worth. 
Northern  merchants  and  manufacturers  felt  very  severely  the  loss  of  *40,000,000 
due  them  from  the  South  and  sequestered  by  the  government  of  the  new  confeder- 
acy. The  South  suffered  also  from  the  blockade,  but  there  were  compensations 
in  that  it  taught  the  Southern  people  to  be  independent  of  the  North.  3oon 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  “aryland  found  it  no  longer  possible  to  remain 
neutral,  and  entered  the  war  on  the  side  of  the  South.  Another  *50.000,000 
of  debts  was  sequestered.  The  North  did  not  attempt  to  carry  the  war  into  one 
border  states,  in  July,  1868,  it  was  reported  that  the  imports  and  revenues  of 
the  North  had  fallen  off  tremendously;  for  the  "greater  part  of  the  former 
importations  to  Northern  ports  and  in  Northern  ships,  was  for  transhipment 
to  and  consumption  in  the  Southern  states."24  In  August  outbreaks  and 
violence  were  reported  in  the  impoverished  Northern  cities;  New  York  was 
sacked  and  burned  - a rather  bitter  commentary  on  the  supposed  friendship 
of  the  South  and  New  York  City.  Soon  the  North  was  unable  to  continue  the  war, 
and  a truce  was  made.  By  February,  1869,  renewal  of  commercial  intercourse 
and  peaceful  relations  had  given  a wonderful  impulse  to  trade  and  business  m 
the  South,  But  Southern  merchants  had  entirely  ceased  aoint  o .no 
purchase  goods  of  any  kind:  "For  all  Northern  fabrics  being  now  subject  to 
high  duties,  would  thereoy  be'>ch  enhanced  in  price,  that  but  few  kinds  can 
be  sold  in  Southern  markets,  in  competition  with  European  articles 
the  same  rates  of  duties  only  - or  of  southern  manufactures,  now  protected 
oy  the  same  tariff  law  which  had  formerly  been  enacted  by  the  superior 
political  power  of  the  North,  and  to  operate  exclusively  cor  the  profit  of 
Northern  aapit.1  and  industry."25  Northern  ship  owners  were  transferring 
their  ships  to  the  South;  Northern  manufacturers  were  coming;  and  mucn 
Northern  capital  was  seeking  investment  there.  A month  later,  it  was  repo-ten 

24.  P.  2*3. 

25.  P.  31*.  


■ 

n 

197 


that  the  ’’commercial  prosperity  of  xhe  South  is  growing  with  a force  and  rapid- 
ity exceeding  any  previous  ant icipations  of  the  mosx  sanguine  early  advocates 

26 

for  the  independence  of  the  Southern  3ta~e3," 

The  Western  states  had  taken  but  little  part  in  the  war.  The  South  had 
granted  them  free  trade  and  free  navigation  of  tne  Mississippi.  Because  of 
this  indulgent  and  conciliatory  treatment  the  people  of  tne  Northwest  nad  nox 
tried  to  open  direct  trade  with  Europe  but  were  content  to  trade  principally 

with  New  Orleans.  On  April  7,  1*69,  it  was  reported  that  New  England  and  tne 

27 

West  were  at  loggerheads  ever  tne  tariif. 

The  volume  closes  with  a prediction  that  the  North  would  soon  3plix,  xne 
'Western  sxates,  upon  their  own  offer,  going  with  tne  South.  ’’And  should  New 
England  be  left  alone,  thenceforward  its  influence  for  evil  on  xne  soutnern 
states  will  be  of  as  little  effect,  and  its  political  and  economical  position 

9 

scarcely  superior,  to  tnose  conditions  of  tne  present  republic  of  Nayti. 

By  Aoril  14,  1*69,  it  was  reported,  commercial  treaties  had  oeen  made  by  _ 
the  South  with  European  powers.  No  duties  were  to  be  over  2.0$.  The  treaties 
might  be  terminated  after  ten  years.  The  tobacco  growers,  who  nad  so  often  in 
the  old  Union  requested  the  government  to  attempt  to  secure  a relaxation  of  -he 
heavy  duties  imposed  upon  their  product  by  France  and  England,  now  had  their 

pc 

wishes  gratified. 

Ruffin's  book  was  written  during  a political  campaign,  when  it  was  well  un- 
derstood that,  in  case  of  Lincoln's  election,  the  cotton  states  would  m all 
probability  secede;  but  its  content  was  only  an  amplification  of  a senes  of 
letters  published  in  the  Richmond  Enouirer  in  December,  1*56,  and  January,  1 '57, 
And  the  arguments  for  secession  which  he  used  were  typical  of  the  secessiomsx 
ger  se  propaganda  to  wnich  the  people  of  the  South  had  been  subjected  for  at 


26.  P.  323. 

27.  P.  32*. 

2*.  ?.  33*. 

29.  P.  329. 


Gf . "Barbaro33a",  Tne  Los x Principle.  l»o  tf 


19ft. 

least  a decade. 

Southern  people  were  strengthened  in  their  expectations  of  beneficial  econ- 
omic effects  to  follow  secession  by  a class  of  politicians,  writers,  and  news- 
paper editors  wno  represented  Northern  commercial  and  mercantile  interests  wnose 
business  was  largely  with  the  South  and  Northern  manuf acturing  interests  who 
either  sold  their  products  in  the  South  or  purcna3ed  their  raw  materials  snez  ", 
or  both.  The  best  known  and  mo3t  trustworthy  individual  of  tnis  class  was 
Thomas  Prentice  Kettell,  ment  ioned  before  in  connection  with  the  secession  move- 
ment of  1* 50.  He  was  in  Ift6j3i  the  editor  of  Hunt  *3  Merchants  * Magazine.  His 
views  carried  considerable  weight,  especially  in  tne  South, where  his  free  trade 
principles,  ni3  sympathetic  attitude  on  the  slavery  question,  and  his  interest 
in  Southern  economic  development  had  long  been  known.  Early  in  the  presiden- 
tial campaign  of  1*60  there  was  published  a book  by  him  entitled,  '\3ojryi&rn> 

Wealth  and  Northern  Profits,  As  exhibited  in  Statistical  Tracts,  and 
Figures;  Showing  the  Necessity  of -Union  to  the  Future.  Prosperity  and  Welfare 
0f  the  Republic . " The  book  showed  an  excellent  understanding  of  the  commer- 
cial and  financial  relations  of  the  North  and  South;  the  conclusions  were  backed 
up  by  tables  of  statistics,  largely  drawn  from  official  sources,  Tne  buraen  of 
the  book  was,  as  the  title  indicates,  that  the  South  produced  wealth,  but  that 

it  accumulated  in  the  North;  Capital,  said  Kettell,  accumulates  slowly  in  all 

. • 30 

agricultural  countries  and  rapidly  in  commercial  and  manuf  acturing  countries. 

He  described  the  resources  of  the  South,  her  enormous  production  of  cotton  and 
numerous  other  products,  an^ier  immense  exports  to  the  North  as  well  as  oo  Europe. 
He  further  showed  the  extent  of  Southern  purchases  in  the  North,  the  value  of 
the  commerce  carried  for  tne  South  by  the  North,  the  Northern  tonnage  so  em- 
ployed — * in  snort  he  discussed  every  form  of  profit  derived  by  tne  North  from 
her  relations  with  the  South.  The  total  profits  the  North  derived  annually 

30.  P.  126. 


159. 


from  Southern  wealth  ne  summarized  in  the 


following  table: 


31 


Bounties  to  fisheries,  per  annum  - — _ _ - - 
Customs,  p«r  annum,  disbursed  at  the  Nortn  - - 
Profits  to  Manufacturers  ----------- 

" " Importers  ------------- 

" " Shipping,  imports  and  exports  - - - 

" on  Travellers  ------------ 

" of  Teachers,  and  others,  at  the  South, 

sent  North  - - - - - 
" " Agents,  brokers,  commissions,  &c-*  - 

» " Capital  drawn  from  the  Soutn  ? - - 

Total  from  these  sources 


$ 1,500,000. 

- 40,000,000. 

- 30,000,000. 

- 16,000,000. 

- 40,000,000. 
60, 000, 000. 

- 50,000,000. 
- 10,000,000. 

30.  OOP.  000.. 
$231,  500,’ 000. 


In  sixty  years,  according  to  Kettell  *3  estimate,  $2, 770,  .00,  -'00  nad  )een 

transferred  from  the  South  to  the  North  in  these  ways.  Such  heavy  drains  had 

32 

prevented  the  accumulation  of  capital  in  the  South, 

Ketteil  *s  arguments  were  addressed  to  the  Northern  people.  He  urged  -:.em 
not  to  endanger  their  prosperity  by  the  unnecessary  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question.  The  South  and  West  were  portrayed  as  having  great  naxural  resources, 
whereas  the  East  had  few.  The  prosperity  of  the  latter  depended  upon  manufac- 
turing and  shipping  for  others/3  He  described  the  efforts  which  had  been  made 
in  the  South  to  make  the  section  independent  of  the  Nortn,  and  the  progress  al- 
ready made  toward  that  goal;  they  were  attributed  to  the  anti-slavery  agitation. 
He  considered  the  possibility  of  a dissolution  of  the  Union.  In  tnat  case, 

"it  is  quite  apparent  that  the  North,  as  distinguished  from  the  South  and  West, 
would  be  alone  permanently  injured.”  As  for  the  South,  "in  the  long  run  it 

31.  P,  127.  There  is  no  way  to  check  these  items  with  any  accuracy,  were 


it  worth  while  to  do  so.  The  fishing  bounties  were  paid  from  the  general  rev- 
enues, and  therefore,  by  both  North  and  Soutn  in  proportions  of  their  respective 
contributions.  The  second  is  undoubtedly  greatly  exaggerated.  Tne  average 
yearly  receipts  from  customs,  1*56-1*60  inclusive,  was  $54,4*7,600.  Assuming 
tnit  the  people  of  the  South  paid  as  much  uer  capita,  as  the  people  o _ ' 

which  they  probably  did  not  (See  ante  p 103;.  the  Soutn  paid  about  $21,44. 
annually.  A part  cf  this  at  least  was  diatnouted  in  the  joutn.  me  sixt  _ 
item,  is  probably  much  too  large.  So,  also,  is  tne  last,  nertnern  investmen 
in  the  South  and  loans  and  extensions  of  credit  greatly  exceded  m amo  ~ 
ern  investments  in  the  North  and  deposits  of  Southern  funds  mNortnern  banks. 
The  item  should  read,  interest  on  Southern  debts  to  Northern  citizens  at  least 
such  an  item,  and  it  would  not  be  a small  one,  should  be  included  in  tne  taole. 

32.  P.  127. 

33.  P.  75. 


200. 

34 

would  lose,  after  recovering  from  first  disasters,  nothing  oy  separation. 

Disunionists  saw  in  Kettell 's  book  an  argument  for  secession.  John  Townsertf, 
of  South  Carolina,  cut  Kettell  fs  estimate  of  Northern  profits  from  a out  hern  in- 
dustry to  less  than  half  - $105,  000,  000  annually  or  $2,  100,  000,  000  in  twenty 
years.  What  would  not  this  sum. -have  accomplished  for  the  South  in  twenty  years? 
he  asked.  '’Direct  trade  - flourishing  cities.  Domestic  majnuf^^ures.  woulu  nave 
occupied  every  water  power,  and  the  whole  South,  — wealthy  and  equipped,  and 
armed  at  every  point,  - would  have  been  able  to  defend  herself  against  the 
world.”35  DeBow,  another  disunionist,  in  nis  review  of  "Soutnern  %alj^and 
Northern  Prof  its/1  said:  "The  author  deserves,  by  nis  laoors,  not  only  on  tins 

occasion,  but  during  along  and  active  career,  the  most  substantial  recognition, 

as  one  of  the  noblest  and  truest  patriots,  the  most  profound  economise,  and 

m36 

ablest  statistical  pnilosophers  of  the  age." 


Of  Northern  newspapers  which  encouraged  the  Southern  people  to  oelieve  that 
disunion  would  be  followed  by  unprecedented  prosperity,  hone  was  ko  (•  widely  . 
read  and  quoted  or  wielded  greater  influence  in  the  South  than  tb.  New  York 
Herald.  It  kept  close  watch  of  events  and  the  state  of  public  opinion  m »ne 
South  and  should  have  known,  perhaps  did  know,  the  c- err  pi  ■ ■■■■  • 

stantly  advocated  a policy  of  meeting  Southern  demands  and  avoidance  of  wound- 
ing Southern  sensibilities  in  order  that  the  South  might  not  oe  compelled  to 
resort  to  measures  wnicn  would  work  injury  to  the  navigating,  mercantile,  an 
financial  interests  of  New  York,  whicn  the  Herald  represented,  in  case  of  dis- 
union, according  to  tne  He rale,  the  imports  of  the  Northern  confederation  would 
so  fall  off  that  it  would  have  to  resort  to  direct  taxation,  while  the  South 
would  have  ample  revenue.  Manufactures  would  be  established  in  tne  sou m vnh 

34.  P.  75. 

35.  "The  South  alone  should  govern  the  South,  ^nd  Africah  JUBSa 

be  controlled  bj.  those  only,  who  are  friendly  m it.  (A  pampnie  t , , - > 

p.  51. 


36.  DeBow  »s  Review.  XXIX,  213. 


201. 

Northern  capital.  Northern  shipping  would  rot  at  it3  docks.  Part  of  the  North- 
ern population  would  migrate  to  the  South;  30  that  the  disproportion  in  numbers 

would  cease  to  exist.  The  value  of  real  estate  in'jihe  North  would  oe  greatly  re- 
37 

duced. 

The  views  which  disunionists,  and  others  both  South  and  North,  held  in  re- 
gard to  the  economic  benefits  to  follow  the  iormation  of  a Soutnern  confeder- 
acy did  not  go  uncontroverted  in  the  South,  Conservative  journals  sucn  as  the 
New  Orleans  Picayune,  perhaps  the  best  newspaper  in  the  South,  the  Montgomery 
Daily  Conf ederat ion,  the  Reyubl ican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  and  the  Savannah 
Daily  Republican.  did  not  consider  that  the  Union  injuriously  affected  the  econ- 
omic interests  of  the  Soutnern  states.  Said  the  Picayune.  1*5*:  "One  of  the 

most  erroneous  ideas,  strangely  obtaining  considerable  currency  at  the  Soutn, 
is  that  wnich  attributes  apparent  decay  of  the  older,  and  comparative  slow  growth 

of  the  younger  Southern  3tate3,  to  a fixed  policy  of  the  General  Government, 

3& 

assumed  to  be  partial  to  sections  in  which  slavery  does  not  exist."  Vne 

Conf ederation  said,  1*59:  "Nor  are  we  wanting  in  a proper  appreciation  of  the 

value  of  the  Union,  ...  We  sing  no  anthems  to  it3  glories,  at  the  3ame  time 

we  cannot  forget  that  under  it,  we  have  grown  to  be  a great,  prosperous  and  af- 

39 

ter  all,  a happy  people.""  Occasionally  DeBow  *s  Review  contained  an  article 

40  o 

which  refuted  the  views  presented  by  the  majority  of  its  contrioutors . Con- 
servative statesmen  often  described  the  South  as  prosperous,  and  attributed  knct 
37.  October  30,  1*60,  editorial,  for  example. 

3*.  Kay  22,  1*5*. 

35.  Fay  IS,  1*59.  A year  earlier  it  n ad  said:  "We  3cout  the  position  so  of- 
ten assumed  that  we  are  inferior  - that  we  are  degraded  in  this  Union  ...  Tnat- 
the  North  does  our  trading  and  manuf acturing  mostly  is  true,  and  we  are  willing 
that  they  should.  If  we  thought  as  3orre  seem  to  think  on  the  subject,  we  should 
boldly  raise  the  standard  of  secession,  and  never  cease  the  scrife  until  cne  Un- 
ion were  dissolved."  May  19,  1^5*. 


40.  XXIV,  431-9,  e.g. 


202. 


41 

prosperity  to  the  Union.  Such  a one  was  Alexander  H.  Stephens.  Senator  Sell, 

of  Tennessee,  in  nis  speech  on  the  Lecompton  bill,  1*5*,  described  the  disun- 

. . 42 

ionists  per  se  of  the  South  and  expressed  his  dissent  from  their  doctrines. 

Disunionists  were  forced  to  admit  on  the  eve  of  the  War  that  tne  >outh  was  en- 
joying a comparative  degree  of  psosperity,  and  they  expressed  concern  lest  a 
feeling  of  content  with  their  economic  condition  would  rake  tne  Southern  'eople 
incapable  of  maintaining  their  rights. ^ The  Charleston  ^ercury  found  it  neces- 
sary to  protest  against  an  editorial  of  the  New  Orleans  See , "an  invetera  e ole. 
Whig  paper,”  for  intimating  "that  the  Southern  people  are  30  cankered  by  prosper- 
ity as  to  be  incapable  of  resisting  the  sectional  domination  of  the  North,  and 

44  • . 

that  the  Union  will  be  continued  because  of  this  prosperity."  Disumcnis c,-. 
found  it  necessary,  also,  to  allay  the  fears  of  tno3e  engaged  in  industry  and 
commerce  who,  while  desirous  of  Southern  industrial  and  commercial  independence, 
believed  that  the  sudden  disruption  of  established  relationships  which  disunion 
might  cause  would  prostrate  their  busine3  3,‘J  Much  of  the  disunion  argument 
seem3  to  have  been  designed  to  win  over  tnis  clas3  of  men. 

Some  of  the  leaders  in  the  various  efforts  made  to  effect  an  industrial  and 
commercial  revolution  in  the  South  were  not  convinced  by  the  arguments  of  tne 
unconditional  disunionists.  James  Robb,  to  whom  more  than  to  any  other  wd/'i:- 
uai  belongs  the  credit  for  the  successful  building  of  tne  New  Orleans,  Jackson, 
and  Great  Northern  railroad,  undertook  to  expose  the  fallacies  of  xfte  secession 
arguments.  It  would  be  suicide  for  the  South  to  abandon  the  Union.  Tne  pur- 
suits of  the  people  of  the  South  were  incompatible  with  any  considerable 
progress  in  manufacturing  and  commerce.  The  remedy  for  dependence  upon 

41.  Letter  to  J.  J.  Crittenden,  Jan.  2,  1*60;  Address  to  his  constituents, 
Aug.  14,  1^57,  Toombs.  Stephens.  Cobb  Correspondence,  415. 

J 42.  * Cong*.  Globe,  35  Cong.  1 Sess.,  App*.  139-4C. 

43.  Speech  of  R.  B.  Rhett,  July  4,  1*59,  in  Charleston  ^ercury,  July 

Address  of  Col.  A.  P.  Aldrich  at  the  fair  of  the  South  Caroline  Institute,  . 

17,  1*59,  ibid. . Nov.  19. 

44.  April  30,  1*59. 

45.  See,  for  example,  A.  J.  Roane  m Ueupw  *3_  review,  NX IX,  4o2. 


203  . 


46 


•fAC  North  was  not  secession  but  a change  of  habit3.  The  South  1 better  oe 
dependent  upon  the  North  than  upon  Europe.  '"Ihe  Southern  rr.ina  i3  c eluded  in  the 
belief  that  ingland  and  France  will  give  to  a separate  Southern  Confederacy, 
founded  on  Slavery,  Free  Trade  and  Cotton,  their  entire  3ympathie3. " If  self- 
interest  did  not  appeal  to  New  England,  would  it  to  England  and  trance?  ihe 
belief-  xhat  the  withdrawal  of  Southern  trade  would  ruin  the  East  was  too  aosuru 
to  merit  notice.  "7/here,"  he  asked,  "is  the  evidence  of  the  prosperity  of  the 
Southern  states  being  seriously  endangered  by  a continued  fellowship  with  New 
England!  Cur  material  progress  for  the  last  fifteen  years  is  without  exav-le , 
William  Gregg,  one  of  the  ablest  and  sanest  thinkers  in  the  south 
upon  questions  affecting  the  economic  interests  of  the  section,  was  not  a se- 
cessionist cer  se.4'  The  South  was  not  ready  for  independence,  ne  said.  Ihe 
Southern  people  should  make  themselves  commercially  and  industrially  independent 
of  the  North  before  going  cut  of  the  Union.  There  would  be  no  advantage  in 
turning  from  the  Yankees  and  relying  upon  Europe.  ‘ Free  trade  among  the  states 
he  considered  the  greatest  bond  of  Union*,  and  at  the  time  ne  wrote,  1*60,  still 
thought  it, "if  properly  poised  and  equalized  throughout  our  common  country,  will 
dispel  the  dark  cloud  which  hangs  over  truth  and  justice  . . . "K'  Yet  Gre£S 
was  not  oblivious  to  -some  of  the  possible  advantages  of  disunion.  If  a line 
were  drawn  which  would  be  a barrier  to  the  importation  of  Northern  locomotive?, 
for  example,  two  years  would  not  elapse  before  the  South  would  manufacture  tnerr 
herself.  Disunion  would  stop  the  practice  followed  by  Soutnern  bamcs  and  money 

44.  Letter  to  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Nov.  25,  1*60,  in  a pamphlet.  A South- 
ern Confederacy.  Letters  bjr,  James  Robb,  late,  a o£  New  Organa  an 

ican  in  Paris  and  Hon.  nlexa  Her  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  pp. 

477  The  statements  relative  to  Gregg's  position  are  based  upon  a senes  o* 
essays  on  "Southern  Patronage  to  Southern  Imports  and  Domestic  Industry  wnicn 
appeared  in  Ded,r'S  mi*,  1*0.  to  February  IStt,  but  all  of  were 

written  before  Lincoln's  election.  But  see  Victor  o.  Clan  in  ^ 

Building  of  the  Nation.  V , 323. 

4P|.  DeBcv/'s  Review,  XXIX,  7*,  '!u,  773, 

49.  Ibid..  XXX,  217. 


204. 


lenders  of  employing  their  money  in  New  York  rather  than  at  home,  which  was  a 

50 

"monstrous  barrier  to  Scutnern  enterprise." 

Yet,  after  giving  due  weight  to  such  Union  arguments  as  wejhave  just  anal- 
ysed, it  remains  that  the  disunionist  arguments  in  regard  to  the  material 
benefits  of  their  project  were  not  adequately  refuted  in  the  South.  Unionists 
more  frequently  took  the  course  of  appealing  to  the  common  history  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  their  common  republican  institut ions,  the  greatness  of  the  Jnicn, 
its  prestige  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  its  vast  military  strength,  the 
weakness  and  insignif  icance  the  South  wouldjhave  as  an  independent  nation,  n •* 
inability  to  protect  an  institution  condemned  by  the  opinion  of  the  world,  and 
the  danger  of  plunging  the  country  into  fratricidal  war.  They  also  found  it 
effective  to  cast  aspersions  upon  the  motives  of  tne  secessionist  leaders,  to 
represent  them  as  restless  spirits,  broken  down  politicians,  disappointed  in 
tneir  political  ambitions. 

Northern  men  contributed  but  little  to  a true  understand ing  of  tne  causes. 

* 

of  the  disparity  of  the  sections  in  prosperity  and  progress  and  of  the  effect 
which  a division  of  the  Union  might  have  upon  the  great  material  interests  of 
the  country;  such  an  understanding,  itjis  believed,  would  have  tended  to  allay 
disunion  sentiment.  Northern  men  were  not  as  well  informed  as  tney  should,  nave 
been  of  the  number  of  disunionists  ££  se  in  the  South  nor  of  tne  arguments  they 
advanced.  Practically  all  of  the  discussions  dealing  with  disunion  were  colorec 
by  partisan  bias.  As  we  nave  seen,  representatives  of  those  business  interests 
of  the  East  which  were  closely  allied  with  the  cotton  power  exaggerated  the  val- 
ue of  the  Southern  connection  and  the  injurious  effects  of  disunion  vwcc  the 
North.  They  sought  to  fix  the  guilt  for  endangering  tne  Union  upon  tne  Northern 
"fanatics"  who  were  agitating  the  slavery  question.  Republican  and  anti-slavery 
writers  and  orators,  who,  it  must  be  remembered,  were  not  trying  to  win  converts 
50.  DeBow  *s  Review,  XXIX,  79,  495. 


205. 


in  the  South  but  to  build  up  a great  party  in  the  North,  dealt  with  dis unionism 
in  a variety  of  ways.  They  denounced  as  mercernary  those  wno  wcula  calculate 
the  value  of  the  Union  in  dollars.  They  commonly  charged  that  threats  of  dis- 
union were  mere  gasconade  for  the  purpose  cf  frigntening  Northern  men  into  vot- 
ing for  Southern  measures.  They  often,  also,  as  did  William  H.  Seward  in  his 
great  speecnes  during  the  campaign  of  1*60,  prot rayed  the  magnitude  of  Northern 
productions  and  Northern  internal  commerce  as  compared  with  the  products  ex- 
changed betw.en  the  sections  and  minimized  the  value  of  the  Southern  trade  ana 
Southern  raw  materials  to  the  North  and  the  injury  wnich  would  be  inflicted 
upon  Northern  interests  by  disunion.51  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  said 
cotton  was  not  king;  cotton  made  but  one  seventeenth  part  of  the  manufactures 
of  the  North.52  The  Republicans,  and  anti-slavery  men  generally,  attributed 
the  "decline"  of  the  South  and  its  dependence  upon  the  North, chiefly  to  one 
blighting  effects  of  slavery*  they  saw  no  hope  of  remedy  so  long  as  slavery  con- 
. , 53 

tinuea  to  exist. 

Perhaps  the  ablest  and  most  philosophical  exposition  of  moderate  Republican- 

ism  made  between  1854  and  1861  is  George  M. West on 's  "Progress  of  Slavery," 

work  wnich  it  would  have  been  well  worth  the  while  of  Southern  thinkers  to  study. 

We  are  here  concerned  only  with  those  of  the  propositions  he  sought  to  establish 

which  relate  to  disunion.  He  told  of  nullification  in  South  Carolina  and  of 

its  partisans  and  sympathizers  in  other  slave  s-ates.  "The  real  cause  of  mis 

Southern  predisposition  to  listen  to  the  appeals  of  the  Palmetto  nullifiers, 

was  Southern  discontent  at  the  prosperity  of  the  North.  »..*  Refusing  x-c  see  the 

51  In  a speech  at  Palace  Garden,  New  Yorx  City,  Nov.  2,  1»60,  je  said; 

"New  York  is  not  a province  of  Virginia  or  Carolina,  an.,  mo.e  .nan  l is  a 
province  of  New  York  or  Connecticut.  New  York  must  be  tne  metropolis  ot  tne  - 

tinent."  New  Yorx  Herald,  Nov.  3.  _ 

52.  Con^.  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1 Sess.,  Appx.  169,  speech  ot  Mar.  2u,  1 . 

reply  to  J.  H.  Hammond’s  "Mud-sill"  speech  of  Mar.  4.  Another 

53.  The  speech  of  Senator  Wilson  just  quoted  is  a goo  exan^; 

is  Hannibal  Hamlin's  reply  to  Hammond,  Mar.  8,  11,  1'5  £££&•  » w *’ 

1 oess,,  1002-1006,  1025-1027. 

54.  Publi3ned  in  18  5^. _ 


j ia ' ;; 


206. 


true  cause  of  tneir  own  misfortunes,  and  eager  to  attribute  tnem  to  every  cause 
but  the  right  one,  they  insisted  that  they  alone  were  the  real  producers  of 
wealth,  and  that  the  North  was  thriving  at  their  expense."  Tnis  doctrine  of  tne 
nullifiers  had  been  steadily  insisted  upon  during  the  following  quarter  of  a 
century.  "It  has,  without  doubt,  become  the  settled  conviction  of  large  num- 
bers of  persons  in  the  slave  states,  that  in  some  way  or  other,  either  tnrough 
tne  fiscal  regulations  of  the  Government,  or  through  the  legerdemain  of  trade, 
the  North  has  been  built  up  at  tne  expense  of  tne  Soutn."  these  were. the 
views  which  prompted  disunion.  He  illustrated  the  reasons  for  wanting  to  dis- 
solve the  Union  by  an  extract  from  a public  address  of  J ohn  Forsytn,  of  Mooile. 

"I  have  no  more  doubt  that  the  effect  of  separation  would  be  to  transfer  tne 
energies  of  industry,  population,  commerce,  and  wealth,  from  the  North  to  the 
South,  than  I have  that  it  is  to  the  Union  with  us,  the  wealth-producing  sta.es, 
that  the  North  owes  its  great  progress  in  material  prosperity.^,  . 0n±on 

broken  we  3nould  have  what  has  been  so  long  the  dream  of  tne  south  - cirect 
trade  and  commercial  independence.  Then,  our  oouthern  cities,  . . c e 30 
long  languished  in  the  shade,  while  the  grand  emporia  of  the  North  nave  facteoe,, 
upon  favoring  navigation  laws,  partial  .legislation  by  Congress,  and  tne  monop- 
oly of  the  public  expenditure,  w£ll  spring  into  life  ana  energy,  ana  oecome  tne 
entrepots  of  a great  commerce." 

The  slavery  agitation  was  not  the  cause  of  disunion  feeling  but  the  pretext, 
according  to  Weston.  The  disunionists  had  been  chiefly  instrumental  in  getting 
it  up:  "It  is  quite  notorious  that  it  is  not  the  slaveholding  class  at  tne  ocuth 

which  particularly  favors  nulli  f ic  ation  • 

The  impoverished  condition  of  the  Soutn,  which  Weston  considered  tne  source 
of  tne  disunion  feeling,  he  thought  attributable  in  part  to  slavery  ana  m art 
to  "that  unnatural  diffusion  of  their  population  over  new  territories,"  -.^cn 
the  Republican  part,  was  opposing.  ^ There  were  no  internal  elements  of  change 
in  slave  society.  The  slaves  were  held  to  tneir  condition  by  force.  Tne  mas- 
ters were  confined  to  planting  by  the  want  of  flexibility  and  adaptability  in 
the  character  of  the  labor  which  they  controlled  and  upon  the  proceeds  of  which 
they  subsisted.  The  non-slaveholding  whites  were  degraded  oy  slavery  wueh  no 
55.  P.  6ft.  56.  p.  65.  57.  P.  5&, 


« 


" 


l 


'j4, 


207. 


5&  , 

hope  of  escape  from  their  abject  poverty.  There  was  no  hope,  from  any  elements 
of  such  a population,  of  the  growth  of  towns,  of  the  mechanic  arts,  or  of  manu- 
facturing and  commercial  interests.  "Throughout  the  South,  towns  are  built  up 
only  by  Northern  ana  European  immigration,  and  wit  ho  ut^  it  there  would  be  scarcely 
any  manifestation  of  civilisation.  Mills,  railroads,  cotton  presses,  sugar 
boilers,  and  steamboats,  are  mainly  indebted  for  their  existence  in  the  Southern 
States  to  intelligence  and  muscle  trained  in  tree  communities."  me  i coemp- 
tion of  the  South  would  come  only  with  the  gradual  encroachment  of  tne  free- 
labor  system  of  the  North  and  Europe  and  the  non- slaveholding  regions  et  tne 
South  upon  the  slave  belts.  That  encroachment  had  begun,  or  soon  would  begin. 

A3  the  slave  area  should  be  contracted  the  discontented  area  would  also  be 
diminished  and  the  Union  would  be  strengthened.  "If  the  course  of  events  in 
the  immediate  future  be  such  as  may  reasonably  be  anticipated,  no  separate 
Southern  Confederacy  could  possibly  embrace  more  than  a few  States  in  tne  soutn-t 
east  corner  of  the  existing  Union;  and  the  scheme  of  such  a confederacy  would  be 

out  down  by  tne  good  sense  of  the  people  in  tnat  quarter,  it , indeed,  their 

60 

patriotism  would  allow  it  to  be  even  entertained. 


5ft.  P.  13. 
59.  P.  15. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


Factors  Which  Tended  t o Allay  ac o nom.ic  u c c n i e n_t 
in  the  South , 1*50-1*60. 

During  tne  decade  of  1*50  - 1*60  there  were  factors  and  conditions  wnicn 
tended  to  make  the  people  of  the  Soutn  content  to  remain  an  almost  exclusive- 
ly agricultural  people. 

In  the  first  place  the  cotton  planting  industry  was  comparatively.,  profit- 
able. During  the  decade  of  1*40  - 49,  the  average  price  of  cotton  at  Soutnern 

2 

seaports  was  8 cents;1  during  the  following  decade  it  was  10.6  cents/ 
price  was  steadier  also  during  tne  later  period.  The  higher  price  level  was 
maintained  in  spite  of  a ratner  remarkable  succession  of  large  crop3  from  l-ol 
to  1*61.  The  average  yearly  production  during  the  first  decace  was  3,xo.\  a 
bales,  and  during  the  second,  3,374,100  bales,3  an  increase  of  over  56  per  cent; 
while  the  total  value  of  the  cotton  produced  during  the  latter  period  was  about 
double  that  of  the  former.  The  crop  of  1*52  - 53,  the  largest  to  that  time, 
brought  tne  cotton  planters  nearly  $150,^00,000.  Tnis  crop  was  exceeded  both 
in  amount  and  aggregate  value  by  that  of  lr-55  - 56.  A considerably  smaller 
crop  the  following  year  brought  in  an  even  greater  aggregate,  which  was  ex- 
ceeded the  next  year,  although  tne  financial  crasn  of  1*57  cost  xne  planters 
many  millions.  The  high  water  mark  of  tne  ante-bellum  coxton  indusxry  was 
reached  in  1*59  - 60,  when  a crop  of  4,  *61,000  bales  was  sold  for  nearly 

1250, 000, 000. 

The  tobacco  and  3ugar  industries  were  almost  as  prosperous,  as  a *es-.lt 
of  the  development  of  improved  varieties  and  setter  methods  of  curing,  tne  de- 
mand for  tobacco  increased,  and  production  in  the  United  States  grew  from  200,- 
000,000  pounds  in  1*49  to  434,000,000  in  1*59,  about  111  per  cent.  In  Virginia 

1.  C.  F.  M 'Cay,  of  Georgia,  in  Hunt's  Merchant's  Magasine,  XXIII,  601. 

De3ow  *s  Review.  XXVII,  106.  Hie  ioe.rea.9t  urM  Joe.  in  part  t0  an  expa-nJinj  money 

3*.  Dbrmell,  History  of  Cotton,  £assLi_. 


. 


209 . 


and  Kentucky,  the  leading  tobacco  produc  ing  states,  the  production  was  doubled, 
while  in  North  Carolina  it  was  tripled.""  Althougn  the  tobacco  growers  contin- 
ued xo  complain  of  the  heavy  duties  imposed  by  foreign  countries  upon  American 
tobacco,5  there  can  be  no  doubt  thal/the  industry  was  more  prosperous  during 
the  decade  before  the  War  than  in  any  other  period  since  colonial  ximes,  The 
sugar  industry  was  a somewhat  uncertain  one.  The  crop  fluctuated  widely  from 
year  to  year  because  of  occasional  early  frosts  another  unfavorable  weather  con- 
ditions. The  price  fluctuated  even  more  widely,  being  dependent  not  only  upon 
the  crop  in  tne  United  States  and  the  tariff,  but  also  upon  the  crop  in  Cuoa 
and  Hayti,  whence  sugar  was  imported.'"  In  1*56  the  crop  in  Louisiana,  which 
produced  virtually  all  of  the  United  States  sugar,  was  only  73,976  hogsheads  and 
sold  for  $110  per  hogshead.  In  1*58  the  crop  was  362,  296  nogsheads,  and  the 
price,  $69.  However,  the  industry  seems  to  have  been  more  prosperous  ■ rom 
1850  to  i860  than  during  the  previous  decade.  The  average  price  was  4n3  and 


the  average  crop  273,450  hogsheads,  1*50-1860;  the  same  ixems  for  1840-1850  were 

n 

$49.75  and  165,150  hogsheads  respectively.’ 

It  was  an  axiom  in  the  South  that  when  the  planting  sections  were  pros- 
perous, the  grain-growing  and  stock-raising  regions  were  also  prosperous.  In 
the  decade  before  the  war  their  prosperity  was  enhanced  by  the  readier  access 
to  market  which  improved  roads  and  newly  built  railroads  afforded.  At  the  same 
time  competition  with  the  agricultural  states  of  the  Northwest  was  rendered 
less  injurious  because  prices  werejkept  up  by  tne  growing  demand  of  the  Last  and 


4.  Meyer  Jacobstein,  Tne  Tobaccp  Industry  ±3. the  Unites  Uxaxes,  3^-39; 

Eighth  Census,  a^r iculture , Introduct ion,  p.  xciii. 

' 5.  ‘Wbarossa?  Tne  Lost  Principle.  176ff;  Memorial  to  Congress,  by  a com- 
mittee of  the  So.  Com.  Conv.,  Knoxville,  in  DeBow^g.  Review,  XXIV,  29!-:M  v,  npr. 

1*5*;  ibid,  XXVI,  315.  , , A „ ,, 

6.  DeBow *3  Review,  XIX,  353,  XXII,  320-25;  433-36;  Roberts oa^  A Oantns 

in  Wort  a America.  **;  Stirling,  Letters  from  tne  Sla^e  $£££*,  ->•  . 

7.  DeBow *s  Review,  XXIX,  524;  Eighth  Census,  Agriculture,  Introduc -i.n, 

xc  ix. 


210. 


Europe  for  foodstuff 3. 

The  growing  degree  of  content  with  the  rewards  of  the  cotton  industry  was 

reflected  in  the  increased  frequency  of  expressions  of  fear  for  the  security  of 

America's  monopoly  of  the  production  of  raw  cotton.  Dr.  Livingston  was  said  to 

9 

have  reported  that  cotton  grew  in  tne  Interior  of  Africa.  Attention  was  given 
to  the  possibility  that  India  might  be  stimulated  to  increased  production.  Muqh 
interest  v/as  taken  in  the  Cotton  Supply  Association,  which  was  organized  in 

19  57  by  English  spinners  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  cotton  production  in  In- 
10 

dia  and  elsewhere. 

It  has  always  been  true  in  the  South  that  when  cotton  prices  have  risen 
pleas  for  the  diversification  of  agriculture  have  fallen  upon  deaf  ears;  so  it 
was  during  the  decade  before  the  War,  The  agricultural  reformers  in  the  cox  ton 
belt  pleaded  with  the  planters  not  to  make  more  cotton,  but  to  raise  their  own 
hogs,  cattle,  horses,  and  mules,  and  to  grow  their  own  corn  and  wheat  — thus 
they  would  cut  down  expenses  and  conserve  the  fertility  of  tne  3oil.  The  re- 
formers told  the  planters  that  tne  high  prices  were  only  temporary,  and  were 

caused  in  part  by  the  increased  gold  supply  resulting  from  the  opening  of  tne 
11 

California  mines.  Tne  rise  in  the  price  of  cotton  was  no  greater  tnan  tne  rise 

12 

in  the  prices  of  other  things.  " A.3mall  cotton  crop,  they  3aid,  and  truly,  of- 
ten grought  a greater  aggregate  than  a large  one.  But  planters  could  no  resist 
the  temptation  to  taxe  advantage  of  prevailing  high  prices  oy  increasing  u neir 
acreage/**  Somewhat  better  traraportat ion  facilities  between  the  planting  and 

the  farming  regions  promoted  tne  tendency  to  specialization.  The  agricultuie 

9,  Eighth  Census,  Agric ulture , Introduction,  cxli,  cxlvi-cxlix  Uaoles  il- 
lustrating growth  of  trade  between  tne  West  and  tne  East  and  Europe), 

9,  DeBow’s  Review,  XXIV,  S'80;  Donnell,  History  of  Cotton,  a % 

10.  ’ T6n"neTl7~oF.Tit  .,454,466,479;  Hunt's  "arc  ha  ms  ' ~'avazine,,  XL  III,  640. 

11,  DeBow 's  Review/" XIV,  290.  . 

12.  Address  of  A,  r.  Aldrich  at  the  Fair  of  the  South  Carolina  Institute, 
1959.  Charleston  Mercury.  Nov.  19,  1959;  DeBow's  .E’naw,  XXX,  22i. 

i.3.  "The  price  oi  cotton  has  raised  tne  price  ot  land,  so  there  is  no  chance 
of  buying  you  a cleared  plantation  now.  And  during  3ucn  prices  it  woula  oe  o 1-1 
to  take  nands  from  making  cotton  in  Baldwin  to  clear  the  /lace  in  Dop^ev  |o  we 
a hall  cave  to  let  planting  affairs  remain  m ’’status  quo,  John  ...  uamar  to 
Howell  Cobb,  Feb.  7,  19  50,  Toombs.  Stephens.  Cobb  Correa  -rnbence. 


211. 


of  the  planting  belts  was  no  more  diversified,  if  as  much,  in  1*60  than  in  1*50. 

The  sugar  and  cotton  planters  seem  to  have  resorted  to  no  diminishing  extent 
to  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  states  even  farther  north,  for  horses  ana 
mules,  hay,  bacon,  pork,  and  beef,  and  even  corn  and  flour,  "There  is  no  reason" 
wrote  a planter,  "why  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and 
Texas  should  not  raise  all  of  their  own  horses  and  mule3,  There  is  no  earthly 

14 

reason  why  these  states  should  not  also  raise  their  own  corn,  hogs,  cows,  etc."' 

James  L.  Orr  described  the  planter  of  South  Carolina  a3  buying  "his  bacon  and 

- 1 5 

pork,  much  of  his  beef,  and  not  infrequently  his  corn  and  flour".  Robert 

Russell,  an  English  traveller,  writing  of  the  planters  of  Mississippi,  said:  "The 

bacon  is  almost  entirely  imported  from  the  North  as  well  as  considerable  quan- 

16 

titles  of  Indian  corn." 


Exoort3  of  Western  produce  from  New  Orleans  to  the  North  and  Europe  felj. 
off  very  raridly  after  the  building  of  railroads  from  the  North  Atlantic  ports 
to  the  West,  but  there  was  no  falling  off  in  the  total  receipts  o-  j/estern 
products  at  New  Orleans'!:7  Thi3  was  due  in  part  to  the  increased  demands  of  New 
Orleans  herself,  in  part  to  the  increased  demands  of  the  South  generally.  Of 
1,0*4, $7*  barrels  of  flour  received  at  New  Orleans  in  lQ59-59,  306,090  were  ex- 
ported to  Northern  ports,  133,193  to  foreign  countries,  and  165,397  to  other 
Southern  ports.1*  The  following  year  $65,360  barrels  of  flour  were  received  at 
New  Orleans,  of  wnich  5*, 739  went  to  the  North,  *0,541  abroad,  and  247,  231  to 


14. 

15. 

16. 
17. 

Census, 


DeBow's  Review.  XiX, 


Ibid.  IX.  21  (July,  1*55 
North  America.  265,  290, 

Eighth  Census,  Agriculture . Intro.,  clvi,  clvii,  Tables  N and  0;  lentn 
Transportation.  699;  DeBovT’s  Review.  IV,  391;  VI,  434;  X,  44^;  XII,  33; 
XVII,  53$;  XXIII,  365;  XXV,  469;  XXVII,  471,479.  "As  an  outlet  to  the  ocean  for 
the  grain  trade  of  the  west,  the  Mississippi  river  has  almost  ceased  to  be  de- 
pended unon  by  merchants."  "And  even,  at  no  distant  date,  all  the  western  grain 
and  flour  which  found  a market  in  New  York  or  New  England  was  shipped  to  New  Or- 
leans in  steamboats,  and  thence  around  the  coa3t  in  ocean  ships."  Eighth  Census, 

Agriculture . Intro.,  clvii,  civ. 

1*.  Ibid.,  Intro,  clvii;  DeBow*3  Review,  XXVII,  479. 


212 


22 


other  Southern  ports.1  ' The  statistics  for  corn,  hacon,  pork  and  other 
articles  produced  north  of  the  planting  belt  show  similar  proportions, 
over,  only  a portion  of  the  Western  provisions  shipped  down  "he  dssissi:  i 

reached  Hew  Orleans.  For  example,  of  32,919  barrels  of  flour  shipped  fro;  tin- 

20 

cinnati  in  1860  to  points  “below  Cairo,  only  65,146  went  to  law  Orleans. 

1860  the  railroads  were  carrying;  no  inconsiderable  amounts  oi  provisions  -re 

.21 

the  West  and  the  farming  sections  of  the  South  in'  o the  pla^  in.-  j-s  ~cns . 

A comparison  of  the  census  reports  for  1850  and  I860  indicates  tnat  t^e 
agriculture  of  the  South  as  a whole  was  loss  diversified  in  the  latter  than  in 
the  former  year.  It  is  sufficient  to  compare  such  Ur  e it  ms  as  cotton, 
tobacco , corn,  wheat,  oats,  potatoes,  hogs,  sheep,  cattle  and  draught,  animals. 

The  per  caoit a production  of  Indian  corn  in  the  South  -us  ' bushels  in  18-*  , 
32.75  bushels  in  1850  and  31  bushels  in  1860.  The  population  of  the  South 

increased  28.9  per  cent  between  1850  and  I860;  during  the  same  time  the.  = annual 
production  of  cotton  had  been  doubled  and  of  tobacco  more  than  douLj.  ■ 
leadin ; cotton  state,  Mississippi,  the  cotton  crop  was  increase  . 150  per  can” , 
and  the  corn  crop,  32  per  cent.  The  percentages  for  Alabama  were  73  and  lb; 
for  Louisiana  336  and  65;  and  for  Georgia,  41  and  0.  South  Carolina  prouaceo. 
less  corn  but  17  per  cent  more  cotton  in  1860  than  in  1850.  Tennessee,  ..no 
leading  corn  state  of  the  South,  grew  no  raore  corn  in  1850  than  in  1850,  cut 
had  increased  her  cotton  crop  by  one-half.  Virginia  and  North  Carolina 
gained  but  little  in  corn  produced,  but  tobacco  production  ad  been  doubled 
in  the  one  and  tripled  in  the  other.  During  the  decade  the  annual  oats  crop 
had  declined  in  every  Southern  state  except  Virginia  and  Texas;  for  tno  South 
IS.  DeBow’s  Be view.  XXIX,  784;  Eighth  Census.  Agriculture.  Intro.,  civil, 

20.  Ibid.  . Intro.,  clviii. 

21.  PeBow’ s Be view.  XXIV,  214. 

22.  Eighth  Census,  Agriculture , Introduction,  pas  sir.  . 


\-  : 


■ 


. 


r 


-c 


213 

as  a whole  the  falling  off  was  over  40  percent.  In  1*50  the  Southern  states 
produced  4**7  oushels  of  sweet  potatoes  £er  capita;  in  1*60,  4.16  busnels. 

There  ware  fewer  hogs  in  the  South  in  1*60  tnan  in  1*50,  the  leading  hog  raising 
states,  Tennessee  and  Georgia,  showing  decreases,  while  Virginia,  Texas,  and 
Arkansas  showed  increases.  Outside  Texas  there  were  fewer  neat  cattle  in  the 
South  in  1*60  than  in  1*50.  The  number  of  milk  cows,  however,  increased  20 
percent;  and  the  production  of  butter  increased  from  6.12  to  o,  55  Pour^9  22L 
capita.  The  number  of  sheep  had  increased  less  than  10  per/cent  and  the  wool 
clip  but  1*.  The  statistics  for  hogs,  neat  cattle,  and  sheep  may  be  contrasted 
with  those  for  draught  animals  which  were  employed  in  the  culture  of  the  staples. 
The  number  of  mules,  oxen,  and  horses  increased  between  1*50  and  1*60  by  103,42, 
and  22  percent  respectively.  The  only  important  food  stuff  of  wnicn  there  was 
a remarkable  increase  of  production  was  wheat  . The  ctop  was  17,7*5,7*1 
bushels  in  1*50  and  31,  441, *26  bushels  in  1*60,  a gain  of  77  percent  and  an 
increase  from  2.5  to  3.5  bushels  £er  cagifca . The  largest  gains  were  made  in  _ 
Tennessee,  North  Carolina.and  Georgia;  they  were  attribute^  very  largely  to  the 
building  of  railroads  which  gave  access  to  market  to  tne  farmers  of  bas-o.n 
Tennessee,  western  North  Carolina,  upper  Georgia,  and  North  Alabama. 

As  the  great  staple  industries  became  more  profitable,  a Tendency  /as 
manifested  to  boast  of  the  prosperity  of  the  South,  to  proclaim  ner  s + rengt.n 
rather  than  her  dependence,  and  to  glorify  agriculture  and  assert  its  superior- 
ity to  other  industries  in  every  aspect  - in  productivity,  in  the  development 

of  individual  character  and  strength,  as  the  conservator  of  tne  rors]  aA 1 

order,  as  a guarantee  of  the  permanence  of  republican  .institutions,  ana  as 

basis  for  the  political  power  of  a nation. 

Planters  had  long  complained  that  they  were  at  the  mercy  of  the  """hey 
power",  the  Bank  of  England,  or  combinations  of  speculator,  and  spinners,  who 
took  advantage  of  the  necessity  of  cotton  planters  to  realise  quickly  upon 





■ 


' 


' 


*t 


. . 

t 

, 

« 

, 


214 

their  cotton  in  order  to  pay  advances  they  had  received  while  tneir  crop  was 
growing.  As  late  as  October,  1*51,  a cotton  planters’  convention  at  Macon, 

Georgia,  published  a scheme  for  organising  the  planters  to  Keep  up  tne  price  of 
c ott on. 23  Later  in  the  decade,  with  demand  outrunning  production,  tne  "law  of 
supply  and  demand"  seemed  sufficient  guarantee  against  exploitation,  "Cotton 
has  outlived  the  money  power  of  the  Bank  of  England,  " wrote  a contributor  to 

"Many  years  since,  Mr,  VTa n Buren  .....  said  tnat  a combination  of  tne 
Bank  of  England  ’diminshed  tne  value  of  every  man’s  property  in  America.  ' ihis 

was  particularly  true  at  the  South,  That  plan  was  tried  to  check  the 

rising  values  in  1*56  abd  1*57;  but  for  the  first  time  without  success.  The 
combinations  of  spinners  are  of  no  avail;  the  manufacturing  wants  exceed  the 
power  of  the  South. ”2^  There  were  even  signs  of  a breaking  away  from  tne 
deplorable  system  of  advance  to  planters;  and  certain  it  is  "hat  the  advances 
came  more  frequently  from  home  banks  and  les3  frequently  from  foreign  factors 
than  formerly. 25  The  South  was  beginning  to  accumulate  the  capital  with  wnich 
to  market  her  staples. 

There  was  reason  for  self-congratulation  also  in  the  way  the  >outh  came 
through  the  financial  crash  of  1*57.  The  South  was  not  as  hard  hit  as  the 
test  and  North,  and,  because  of  large  crops  at  good  prices,  recovered  more 
rapidly. 26  Southern  merchants  paid  their  debts  in  Eastern  cities  a3  usual  in 
1*5*; 27  and  Eastern  merchants  were  induced  to  seek  purchasers  in  the  a-ath 

23.  DeBow’s  Review,  XII,  110,  121-6,  275-*0. 

24.  Ibid,  XXVII,  106.  ’’Cotton  is  king.  The  Bank  of  England  was  until  i*-1- eJ  y3 
but  the  last  time  she  tried  to  put  on  the  screws  she  failed?  J.H. Hammond  in  the 
Senate,  Mar*  4,  1*5*,  Cong.  Globe,  35  Cong,,  1 Syss., 

25.  DeBow’s  Review,  XXVII,  106;  Hunt’s  Merchants.’  Magazine,  XL II,  157; 
Charleston  Courier,  Nov,  5,  1*60, 

26.  DeBow’s  Review,  XXVI,  92,  5*2,  quoting  the  United.  States  E^pnomiet. 

27.  Charleston  Mercury,  Mar.  11,  1*5*,  quoting  the  New  York  Herald;  time's. 
Merchants*  Magazine.  XXXVIII,  5*3. 


v . ' t x ■tftj 


! II 


< 

' < , . 


< 


, 


« 


215 


rather  than  in  the  West,2*  Never  before  had  Southern  banks  held  so  large  a 
proportionof  the  nation's  3pecie  as  in  1^5^,  lp59  and  1*60.^  This  favor ao la 
balance  may  have  been  due  in  some  degree  to  smaller  purchases  of  Northern  and 
foreign  goods  after  the  panic,  and,  possibly,  to  a partial  carrying  out  of 
threats  of  non- intercourse  in  retaliation  for  the  Northern  "aggressions1’;  but 
the  chief  explanat  ion  lies  in  the  unusual  sums  realized  from  the  crop  of  those 

years. 

Formerly  when  comparisons  had  been  made  between  the  3lave  'holding  and  the 
free  states,  Southern  men  had  generally  been  content  to  trace’^outhern  decay 
to  other  causes  than  slavery  which  is  in  fact  all  that  saved  us. 1,30  In  1^4  = 
all  wood  Fisher,  of  Cincinnati,  in  a lecture  there,  maintained,  "in  opposition 
to  the  existing  opinion  on  the  subject/  that  the  "South  is  greatly  the  superior 
of  the  North  in  wealth  in  proport  ion  t o the  number  of  their  citizens  respec- 
tively, "31  This  proposition  he  sought  to  demonstrate  by  a formidable  array 
of  miscellaneous  statistics  ingeniously  arranged.  Both  the  thesis  ana  the 
method  of  demonstration  were  comparatively  new  to  the  South.  J.H.  Hammond, 
reviewing  the  lecture  for  the  Southern  Quarterly.  Review,  said;  "It  will  be 
perceived  ...»  that  Mr,  F-isner  strikes  out  into  a bold  and  to  most  persons  we 
doubt  not  an  entirely  new  train  of  facts  and  arguments  in  the  discussion  of  xhis 
subject. "32  He  refuted  some  of  Fisher’s  arguments.  Fisher's  lecture,  however, 
was  well  received  in  the  South. 33  Both  his  conclusions  and  method  were 

2*.  Charleston  Mercury.  XL  1 1,  70;  DeSowJa  Review,  XXVI,  5*3. 

29.  Hunt's  Merchants.'  MagaaAne . XXXJX,  459,  XL II,  157;  XLIII,  455. 

30.  J.  H.  Hammond  Vo  Calhoun,  Aug.  1ft,  1*45,  Calhoun  Corre sconce. 

31.  Lecture  on  the  North  and, the  South,  before  the  *oun&  pen's  Tej^an/JJe 
Library.  AaTSTSt  in  qf  Cincinnati.  1*49  (pamphlet?  p.7.  The  lecture  is 
DeBow's  Rev iew,  VII,  134  ff.,  262  ff. 

32.  Southern  Quarterly  Review,  276. 

33.  DeBow's  Review.  VII,  134,  Fisher  was  made  editor  of  the  3 JrggJ. , 

a snort  lived  organ  established  in  Washington,  1*49,  by  southern  members  o 

Congress, 


. 


, 


. 


< 


< , 


, 


« 


4 


216 


followed  with  increasing  frequency  in  succeeding  years,  chiefly,  no  doubt, 
because  slavery  must  be  defended,  but  partly  because  the  economic  position  of 
the  South  seemed  to  justify  doing  so.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  defended  slavery 
by  demonstrat ing  the  superiority  of  the  slave  state  of  Georgia  over  the  free 
state  of  Ohio  in  prosperity  and  all  other  respects  in  which  abolitionists  were 
wont  to  make  invidious  comparisons,34  B.  F.  Stringfellow  used  Fisher’s  method 
xn  his  pamphlet,  "Negro  Slavery  No  Evil";  as  did  many  other  less  able  defenders 
of  the  institution. 

The  arguments  of  those  who  would  diversify  Southern  industry  were  frequenxly 
refuted  during  the  few  years  preceding  the  war,  "For  fifty  years,"  wrote 
George  Fitthugh,  "she  {the  South)  has  been  more  usefully,  more  industriously, 
more  energetically  and  more  profitably  employed  than  any  people  under  the  sun. 

Yet  all  the  while  she  has  been  envying  and  wishing  to  imitate  the  little  truck 
patches,  the  filthy,  crowded,  licentious  factories,  the  mercenary  shopkeeping* 
and  the  slavish  commerce  of  the  North. "35  The  Montgomery  Dailv.  Co nfede. r 'Ktion, 
a conservative  organ,  protest^  against  the  doctrines  which  found  favor  in  t ne 
Southern  Commercial  Convention:  "That  the  North  does  our  trading  and  manufac- 

turing mostly  is  true,  and  we  are  willing  that  they  should.  0ur3  is  an 
agricultural  people,  and  God  grant  that  we  may  continue  so.  We  never  want  to 
see  it  otherwise.  It  is  the  freest,  happiest,  most  independent,  ad  with  us,  one 
most  powerful  condition  on  earth. "36  Those  who  attended  the  Southern  Commer- 
cial Convention  and  interested  themselves  in  schemes  for  the  regeneration  of 
the  South,  made  much  of  the  argument  that  commercial  independence  would  augment 
the  political  power  of  the  South  and  enable  the  Southern  people  to  better  ddfend 

34.  Cleveland,  Alexander  H.  Steghena,  in  Publifi.  ^Private,  4l(>.  32;  432-59. 

35.  DeBow’s  Review.  XXIII,  5*7. 

36.  May  1<? , 1*58. 


■ 

' 


217 


their  rights  and  interests;  but  the  majority  seem  to  have  preferred  to  stake 


Frequent  reference  has  been  made  in  former  chapters  to  the  use  of  this 
argument  in  some  form  or  other.  It  may  be  briefly  recapitulated:  Tne  South 
produced  an  immense  surplus  for  export  of  great  staples,  particularly  cotton, 


e large  part  of  the  commerce  and  trade  of  the  world,  constituted  the  raw 
material  for  factories  in  England.  and  America  employing  millions  cf  capital 
and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  hands,  and  furnished  the  basis  for  American  credit 
in  Europe.  With  the  return  from  their  staples  the  Southern  people  purchased 
manufactured  goods  from  the  Worth  and  from  Europe  and  provisions  from  the  West, 
whose  production,  sale  and  transportation  gave  employment  to  factories,  farmers 
shippers,  arri  merchants.  When  one  computes  the  capital  and  lacor  dependent 
either  directly  or  indirectly  upon  the  production  and  export  of  Southern 
staples,  he  has  a stupendous  total;  and  the  Southerner  was  only  too  prone  to 
exaggerate  the  part. his  cotton  played  in  keeping  the  wheels  of  the  world's 
industry  in  motion.  And  cotton  and  negro  slavery  were  said  to  be  synonymous. 
The  South  had  a monopoly  of  the  world’s  cotton  supply.  °nly  negroes  held  xn 
slavery  could  make  the  great  crops  of  cotton.  Therefore,  destroy  slavery  and 
the  mighty  structure  reared  upon  it  would  come  down  with  a crash.-7  Also,  as 


"cotton  is  king"  argument. 


Cotton  is  King  (second  edition)  163. 


* 

. 


. 


21* 


long  as  the  sections  were  dependent  upon  each  other,  the  South  had  at  hanc.  a 
powerful  weapon  in  the  form  of  threats  to  limit  the  cotton  supply,  to  manufacture 
it  herself,  to  conduct  her  own  commerce,  to  adopt  a policy  of  non-intercourse,  t- 
secede,  anything,  in  short,  which  would  injure  interests  elsewhere  whose  pros- 
perity and  permanence  depended  upon  the  continuance  of  existing  commercial 
relat  ionships  between  the  sections.  This  weapon  could  be  used  to  secure  Northern 
support  for  Southern  measures.  Furthermore,  those  who  desired  disunion  or 
believed  it  inevitable,  could  plausibly  argue  that  secession  would  be  peaceful: 
The  interruption  of  Southern  trade  and  the  cutting  off  of  the  cotton  supply, 
which  war  would  cause,  would  so  prostrate  Northern  industry  that  the  section 
would  be  incapable  of  waging  war:  England  and  France  would  not  tolerate  a war 

which  might  involve  the  interruption  cf  their  supply  of  cotton,  A southern 
confederacy  once  established,  cotton  would  be  the  power  which  would  preserve 
the  peace  and.  secure  favorable  commercial  treaties. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  continued  potency  of  the  cotton  is  King  argument 
depended  upon  the  South’s  remaining  exclusively  agricultural;  to  the  extent 
the  Southern  people  should  become  industrially  and  comm.erc  ially  independent 
the  argument  would  lose  force,  George  Fitzhugh  wrote:  "Indeed,  the  South 
will  commit  a fatal  blunder  if,  in  its  haste  to  become  nominally  independent, 
it  loses  its  present  engines  of  power,  and  thereby  ceases  to  be  really 
independent  ....  It  is  our  great  agricultural  surplus  that  gives  us  power, 

commands  respect,  and  secures  independence ;"3*  13  apparent  also 

that,  for  the  cotton  is  king  argument  to  be  a satisfactory  ore  from  the 
Southern  point  of  view,  the  agricultural  system  upon  which  it  v-e3  OmS-  • 1 Ujt 
be  satisfactory  to  the  Southern  people. 

3*.  DeBow’s  Review.  XXIII,  341  (Dec.  1*57).  Fitchugh  found  reason  soon 
to  cha.nge  his  opinions  somewhat. 


' 


' 


. 


. 


i 


■ 

. 


. 


. 1 

1 

• 

219 

Southern  statesmen  and  politicians  had  long  used  the  cotton  is  king 
argument  in  one  form  or  another  without  reserve  and  with  considerable  effect. 

During  the  crisis  of  1*50,  for  example,  it  appeared  in  the  frequent  calculations 
of  the  value  of  the  Union.  But  at  no  time  did  cotton  seem  more  powerful,  and 
the  Southern  people  morejinc  lined  to  exult  in  it  and  wield  it  as  an  instrument 
of  political  power,  than  during  the  several  years  immediately  preceding  the 
Civil  War,  After  the  passage  of  the  Kanaas-Nebraska  bill,  Professor  Christy, 
of  Ohio,  published  a very  ingenious  volume  entitled, Cottin  is.  King,  one  of  . 
whose  theses  was  that  an  alliance  had  been  strucx  between  the  planters  of  the 
South  and  the  producers  of  provisions  in  the  Northwest/5  But  it  was  ch*»fly 
to  the  industrial  and  commercial  centers  of  the  North  that  the  appeal  -ms  made. 
Jefferson  Davis,  speaking  to  a Boston  audience  in  Paneuil  Hall,  said: "Your 
interest  is  to  remain  a manufacturing,  and  ours  to  remain  an  agricultural, 
people.  Your  prosperity,  then,  is  to  receive  our  staple  and  to  manufacture  it, 
and  ours  to  sell  it  to  you  and  buy  the  manufactured  goods.  "4C  John  E.  Floyd 
said,  in  New  York;  "X  rejoice  that  the  great  staples  cf  the  Couth  are  the  chief 
means  by  which  your  commerce  is  festered  and  your  mechanics  and  Ptisans  kept 
constantly  at  work. -41  During  the  campaign  of  1*56  and  1*60  Southern  orators 
were  sent  to  Northern  c ities..  R.B.T.,  Hunter,  Robert  J.  Walker,  Henry  W. Hilliard 
Herschel  V.  Johnson  and,  eve*, William  L.  Yancey,  were  all  adept  in  appealing 
to  the  business  interests/2  Nor  did  these  appeals  to  interest  fail  to  raise 
up  powerful  allies  for  the  South  in  the  North  - the  "Northern  men  wit*  Southern 
principles."  Leading  journals  closely  identified  with  the  business  interests, 

39.  Pp.  144  ff,  especially, 

40,  Mrs.  Varina  Davi3,  Jefferson  6^'. 

41,  DeBow's  Review,  XXI,  604. 

42.  DeBow's  Review,  XXI,  530-3*;  5*9-602;  Hilliard, 

Pictures.  294-302;  New  York  Herald,  Sept^ipct.  il,  X " ~ , s,*,'  = crK" 
in  Washington  and  New 


I 


. 


' 


. - 


. 


. * 


, 


220 


such  a3  the  New  York  Herald,  the  New  York  axp re 3 3 . the  Boston  Pp3t . the  Bo3ton 
Courier,  and  the  Philadelphia  Atla3.  defended  the  South  and  slavery  and 
described  the  dire  effects  upon  the  North  of  goading  the  Southern  states  into 
non- intercourse  or  secession.  Slavery  had  its  defenders  in  the  pulpit  and  in 
the  schools.  Northern  politicians  friendly  to  the  South  were  not  courting 
Southern  popularity  only.  So  effective  was  cotton  as  an  argument  for  slavery 
that  optimistic  men  from  time  to  time  detected  a ’’returning  sense  of  injustice" 
in  the  North  and  a change  in  the  attitude  of  the  people  of  Ungland  and  France 
toward  slavery, ^ 

The  prosperity  of  Southern  agriculture  was  reflected  also  in  the  labor 
situation.  Between  164C  and  1*50  when  prices  of  cotton  and  slaves  were  low, 
the  feeling  was  pretty  strong  throughout  the  South  that  there  was  a redundancy 
of  labor  engaged  in  the  culture  of  cotton.  Planters  welcomed  suggestions  that 
slaves  be  diverted  from  cultivating  cotton  to  other  labor.  The  possibility  of 
employing  then  in  factories  and  in  the  construction  of  internal  improvements 
wa3  canvassed.  The  experiment  was  tried  in  both  fields,  and  in  the  latter,  at 
least,  proved  successful,^*  In  the  next  decade  the  prosperity  of  Southern 
agriculture,  especially  cotton  growing,  and  to  some  extent  the  employment  of 
slaves  upon  works  of  internal  improvement,  created  a strong  demand  for  labor. 
Prices  of  slaves  rose  to  unprecedented  figures  . A contributor  to  De3ow's,  1^56, 
said  the  price  of  field  hands  had  doubled  in  five  years,"’  ; A Georgia  delegate 
to  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  the  same  year,  said  negroes  were  worth 
from  $1000  to  $1500  each,  and  there  were  ten  purchasers  to  ever,  seller. 

43,  Cleveland,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  637  ff;  DeBow’s  Reviews  XX XV,  423; 

New  Orleans,  Picayune , Jan,  5,  1^58,  J , H,  Hammond,  speech  at  Beech  Island, 
3.C.,  July  22,  185fi,  in  Charleston  Fercury . July  27. 

44,  DeBow’s  Review.  XXIX,  254;  XVII,  76-r,2;  Phillips,  American  Negro 
Slavery.  375-37A, 

45,  DeBow  *s  Review,  XXI,  157. 


46,  Ibid..  XXII,  222 


, 


221 


47 

Frequent  accounts  of  the  sales  of  slaves  affirm  the  trutn  of  these  assertions. 

The  prices  continued  to  rise  until  secession. 

This  remarkable  rise  in  prices  occurred  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
labor  force  engaged  in  the  production  of  cotton  and  sugar  was  receiving  large 
increments  in  addit ion  t o the  natural  increase  of  slaves.  Partly  because  of 

the  high  prices  offered  for  slaves  by  planters,  and  partly  because  of  the 

0 

influx  of  foreigners  andAincreas  ifficulty  of  controlling  slaves  in  cities, 

the  slave  population,  of  such  large  cities  as  Baltimore,  New  Orleans,  St. Louis, 

and  Charleston  declined  between  1*50  and  1*60.  The  slave  nopulaxien  of 

Charleston  fell  from  19,532  in  1*50  to  13,909  in  1*60;  that  of  New  Orleans 

declined  from  l6,*45  to  13,3*5,  notwithstanding  there  was  a remarkable  increase 

in  thetotal  populat  ion  of  the  city.4*  In  Richmond,  Savannah,  Augusta, 

Columbus,  Memphis,  Nashville,  Mobile,  Natchez,  and  other  towns,  there  was  a 

considerable  decline  in  the  proportion  which  the  slave  population  bore  t • the 

white  population.49  thousands  of  slaves  were  transferred  each  year  from  the 

border  states  and  the  older  cotton  states  to  Arkansas,  Miss  issippi,  Louisiana, 

and  Texas,  end  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  went  to  the.  cotton  and  sugar 

plantations  of  those  states.  Clmstead  estimated  the  number  of  slaves  annually 

sold  south  from  the  northern  slave  states  at  25, 000.50  Winfield  Collins 

estimated  from  the  reports  of  the  U.3.  Census  that  during  the  period  1*50-1*60, 

207,000  slaves  were  transferred  from  the  selling  states,  which  included  North 

and  South  Carolina,  to  the  buying  states.*  In  Delaware  and  Maryland  the  slave 

47.  This  subject  is  thoroughly  discussed  in  Phillips,  A — j>,ican.  Ne^ro 
Slavery.  373-375,  and  chart,  p.  37C. 

4*.  Compendium  of  the  Seventh  Census,  £2aJ£i  Ei?hth  Cbneue  ^yula^i.03 
page im.  The  slave  populations  of  St.  Louis,  Baltimore,  and  Louisvixle  were  «maxl. 

49,  Ibid. . DeBcw  Review.  XXX, 70, 

56.  C ott c n Kingdom,  I,  3*  n. 

51 . Domestic  Slave  Trade,  66 e 


. 


. 


. 


* 


. 


. 


. 


222 


population  declined  during  the  decade.58  In  Virginia  it  increased  only  3.88 

per  cent ; in  South  Carolina,  4.53  per  cent;  in  Kentucky,  6.87  per  cent;  in 

ITorth  Carolina,  14.73  per  cent;  and  in  Tennessee,  hut  little  more.  The  increase 

in  the  total  slave  population  of  the  United  States  during  the  decade  was  23.39 

per  cent,  of  which  at  least  20  per  cent  represented  natural  increase.  ‘ hy  no 

means  inconsiderable  increment  to  the  labor  force  of  the  planting  he-ts  of 

cotton  states  consisted  of  slaves  imported  from  outside  the  United  States  in 

violation  of  Federal  and  state  laws.  Collins  considers  70,000  a ’’moderate  and 

53 

even  low"  estimate  of  the  number  0f  slaves  inpor ted  between  1850  and  1660.' 

DuSois,  in  his  Sunrre salon  of  the  African  Slave  Trade, asserts  that  the  laws 

against  the  foreign  slave  trade  were  "nearly  nullified,"  and  that  the  increase 

of  illicit  traffic  and  actual  importations  in  the  decade  1850-1860  may  almost 

54 

be  termed  a reopening  of  the  slave  trade.1' 

3ut  these  additions  to  the  l&bcr  force  of  the  cotton  and  sugar  plantations 

were  incommensurate  with  the  demand,  and  could  not  be  made  indefinitely.  Con- 
siderable speculation  was  indulged  in  as  to  whence  would  come  the  labor  vMch 
would  enable  the  cotton  planters  to  extend  their  operations  in  the  future  and  the 
South  to  maintain  her  position  as  the  chief  source  of  the  world’s  cotton  supply. 
John  M.  Cordoaa,  an  old  and  reliable  commercial  editor  of  -Chariest on,  saxc.  the 
yearly  increase  in  the  cotton  crop  of  the  United  States  was  regulated  by  a 
fixed  law,  namely,  the  increase  in  slave  population,  which  was  3 per  cent  per 
annum.  True,  production  had  been  increasing  at  a more  rapid  rate  because  of 
the  transfer  of  slaves  from  the  non-cotton  states  to  the  cotton  belt  and  frc... 
poorer  to  more  fertile  lands  within  the  belt;  but  this  process  could  not  go  cn 
initely.  Improved  methods  and  labor  saving  machinery  could  be  considered 

52.  Ui; ' tv  Census,  CTUfU'  tlon.  59  . 

53.  Op.  Cvg.  20. 

54.  Pp.  176,  183. 


f 


• . ! ' 


S 


< 


* 


< 


* 


-■'V 


t 


223 


negligible  factors  in  increasing  production.  He  had  no  fear  of  foreign 
competition. 55  J.  B.  Gribble,  a New  Orleans  cotton  factor  who  reviewed  the 
trade  for  Hunt's  Merchant  s * Karine,  believed  ths.t  the  poor  wniteS  vo  be 
induced  by  the  high  prices  to  labor;  in  fact,  already  a change  was  perceptible 
and  soon  many  "small  crops"  would  tell  with  some  effect  upon  the  aggregate 
yield.  S6  Other  observers  thought  the  tobacco  and  grain  growing  states  had  no 
redundancy  of  labor  and  were  unlikely  to  have  "so  long  as  their  present  pros- 
perity continues, "57  jhe  United  States  Economist,  1859,  pictured  the  cotton 
states  as  prosperous  and  the  prospects  for  the  future  of  toe  cottoh  industry  «» 
brilliant.  With  the  advancing  prices  of  slaves  it  would  be  "impossible  to  limit 
the  increase  of  supply  to  the  rule  which  now  governs  it,  vie,  the  natural  increase 

C £ 

of  hands."  Cultivation  would  be  undertaken  by  whites. 

Suggestions  that  the  high  price  of  cotton  might  lead  to  its  culture  oy 
white  farmers  in  competition  with  the  planters,  or  that  the  exorbitant  prices 
of  slaves  might  lead  to  the  employment  of  white  labor  upon  the  plantations,  . 
received  considerable  attention  from  a class  of  Northern  and  English  write,  s 
who  werelinterested  not  so  much  in  the  future  of  cotton  as  in  the  future  of 
slavery. White  labor,  they  asserted,  was  cheaper  than  negro  slave  l«-oc-r, 
and  whites  could  work  in  the  climate  of  the  cotton  belt.  Robert  nussell,  tr.e 
most  competent  of  the  British  observers,  put  a high  estimaxe  upon  the  advan- 
tages of  the  plantation  system;  but  saw  no  bar  in  the  climate  to  production 

55.  DeBow's  Review,  XXII,  337-49  (Apr.  1857). 

56.  XXVII,  554-61.  57.  Charleston  Me rc ury , May  4,  1858,  article  by 

P.A.  Morse,  of’Louis iana.  Same  in  DeBow's  Review,  XXIII,  4*0. 

58.  Quoted  in  DeBow's  Rev  lew.  XXVI,  58  2. 

59.  F.L.Olmstead,  Cotton  Kingdom,  II,  254-59,  265-7,  186;  Journey  in  tne. 

Back  Country,  237,  345;  Edward  Atkinson,  Cheap^Cot^n  ££  » -*  j . 

Cotton  Manufacturer;  West  on,  Progress  jyLJIav.eXy  > 44  > Girling,  Let 

Slave  "'States.  234,  3 CA;  Russell,  North  America,  2°  4 ff. 


224 


,f  cotton  by  white  labor.  He  remarked  the  considerable  Mount  of  cotton  already 
grown  in  the' pine  barrens,  whose  climate  was  even  warmer  than  that  of  the  middle 
cone  or  uplands,  where  most  of  the  plantations  were  located/0  The  attitude 
of  the  people  of  the  South  toward  suggestions  of  the  possibility  of  a large 
amount  of  cotton  being  produced  by  white  labor  at  no  distant  oay  can  °est 
studied  in  connection  with  the  movement  to  reopen  the  foreign  slave  trade. 

About  lft  56  there  was  begun  a lively  agitation  in  tne  cott  n states  in 
favor  of  the  repeal  of  the  laws  prohibiting  the  foreign  slave  trade,  this 
agitation  continued  until  after  secession.  The  movement  for  the  renewal  of  the 
slave  trade  may  be  attributed  in  part  to  the  demand  of  the  planting  interest 
for  a larger  ani  cheaper  labor  supply;  to  the  extent  this  may  be  done,  the 
movement  testifies  to  the  prosperous  condition  of  .Southern  agriculture.  The 
movement  snd  the  accompanying  discussion  also  brought  out  clearly  two  divergent 
conceptions  of  a proper  Southern  policy;  One  looked  to  the/diversif ication  of 
industry,  the  encouragement  of  white  immigration,  ana  tne  ueveloorent  f f 
rather  than  slave  labor.  In  this  view,  the  future  lay  with  the  white  race, 
and  the  South  had  other  interests  than  slavery.  The  otner  concept  un  f ,oli.cy 
looked  to  the  preservation  of  a slave  society  and  the  Plantation  system,  and  was 
antagonistic  to  any  changes  which  might  endanger  the  existing  social  ana  scon- 
omic  order.  A study  of  the  movement  for  reopening  the  slave  trade  should  con- 
tribute to  an  understanding  of  this  deep  seated  division  in  Soutnern  public 
opinion.  A study  of  the  movement  illustrates  also  the  growth  of  disunion 
sentiment  and  the  existence  of  sectional  divisions  in  the  South,  with  their 

basis  in  conflicting  interests. 

As  early  as  1*52,  L.».  Opnrtt,  the  editor  of  the  Charleston  Stannard, 
advocated  the  reopening  of  the  African  slave  trade.  Tor  a few  years  he  was 

60.  Worth  America,  8*4,  2*5.  «f.  *.B.  Hamoond.  The  gotten  Industrv,  »«  « 


225 


almost  alone.  In  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  New  Orleans,  1855,  a 

Louisiana  delegate  introduced  a resolution  recommending  that  Southern  congres- 

men  work  for  the  repeal  of  the  Federal  laws  against  the  slave  trade;  out  the 

resolution  elicited  no  discussion.01  The  first  responsible  loader  to  publicly 

espouse  the  cause  was  Governor  Adams,  of  South  Carolina.  In  his  message  to  the 

legislature,  November,  1856,  he  argued  at  length  for  revival  of  the  trade  , 

examining  the  subject  in  all  of  its  aspects,  economic,  political,  social,  and 

moral.62  The  lower  house  of  the  legislature  after  a short  but  animated  debate, 

referred  the  governor’s  recommendation  to  a special  canmittee,  which  was 

permitted  to  defer  its  report  until  the  next  session.  Apparently  only  a small 

minority  wished  to  agitate  the  subject.63  In  South  Carolina  as  elsewhere, 

..  . 64 

Adams’s  recommendation  was  considered  amove  to  advance  the  cause  of  disunion. 

The  Savannah  Republican  had  no  idea  that  it  was  made  in  good  faith,  but  only 

as  the  "handmaid  and  twin  sister  of  Disunion."65  Southern  leaders  in 

Congress  hastened  to  correct  the  impression  which  the  discussion  in  South 

Carolina  was  creating  elsewhere,  and  resolutions  were  introduced  and  adopted 

66 

declaring  against  reopening  the  foreign  slave  trade. 

But  these  resolutions  failed  to  check  agitation.  The  subject  was  injected 

into  the  proceedings  -®f  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  at  Savannah,  December, 

67 

1856;  and  the  revival  of  the  trade  was  favored  by  a very  aggressive  minority. 

At  Knoxville  the  following  year,  the  subject  occupied  the  larger  part  of  the  time 
of  the  convention.68  A resolution  declaring  that  the  joint  patrol  article  of 
the  Treaty  of  Washington,  1842,  should  be  abrogated,  was  adopted.  At  the  ses- 

61.  DeBow’s  Review.  XVIII,  628.  62.  Charleston  Dai  lx  Courier, 

Nov.  26,  1856.  -Q 

63.  DeBow’s  Review.  XXVII,  364.  Savannah  Republican,  Dec.  15,  iy. 

64.  Ibid..  Dec.  5,  1856;  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  2. 

65.  Dec.  6,  1856. 

66.  Cong.  Globe.  34  Cong.,  3 Sess.,  123-6. 

67.  Proceedings  in  Savannah  Re-publican,  Dec.  9-15,  1856;  DeBow’s  Review, 
XXII,  81-105;  216-24. 

68.  Proceedings,  in  DeBow’s  Review,  XXIII,  298-320. 


1.  H 


226 


sions  of  the  Commercial  Convention  held  in  Montgomery,  1858,  and  Vioksburg, 

1859,  the  foreign  slave  trade  was  virtually  the  only  subject  discussed.  At 

Vicksburg  the  convention  adopted  a resolution  declaring  that  "all  laws,  state 

or  Federal,  prohibiting  the  African  slave  trade,  ought  to  be  repealed."  The 

delegates  from  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Arkansas  formed  an  "African  Labor 

70 

Supply  Association,**  of  which  J.  D.  B.  DeBow  was  made  president.  The 

avowed  purpose  of  the  organization  was  not,  as  the  name  may  suggest,  to 

encourage  the  importation  of  slaves  notwithstanding  the  laws  against  it,  but 

71 

to  conduct  an  agitation  for  their  repeal. 

Meanwhile  the  question  had  come  before  the  state  legislatures.  The 
Mississippi  legislature,  1857,  had  before  it  a plan,  proposed  by  Henry  Hughes, 
to  charter  the  ** African  Labor  Immigration  Company”  to  bring  in  negroes  as 
"apprentices."72  Ho  action  was  taken  upon  it.  The  Louisiana  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, by  a large  majority,  passed  a bill  providing  for  the  importation 
of  2,500  Agrican  negroes  to  be  indentured  for  a term  of  not  less  than 
fifteen  years.  A select  committee  of  the  Senate  reported  the  bill  favorably. 

The  Senate,  by  a majority  of  only  two  votes,  postponed  the  bill  indefinite- 
ly.73 Both  the  Mississippi  and  the  Louisiana  measure  were  said  to  be 
compatible  with  the  Federal  laws  prohibiting  the  slave  trade.  In  the 
South  Carolina  Legislatures  of  1857-59  the  subject  was  again  considered.  In 
January,  1859,  DeBow  wrote:  "Certainly  no  cause  has  ever  grown  with  greater 

70.  DeBow' s Review,  XXVII,  120.  . VVTrTT 

71.  Letters,  Yancey  to  DeBow,  DeBow  to  Yancey,  DeBow  _s  Revi ew,  XXv  , 

231-35. 

72.  Hew  Orleans  Delta.  Feb.  9,  1858;  DeBpwjs  Review,  XXV,  627.^ 

73.  Hew  Orleans  Picayune.  Mar.  5,  21,  27,  1858;  DeBow  s Review,  . 

491. ff.  The  report  of  the  select  committee  of  the  Senate  is  in  DeBo w _s_  t .fay i.ex, 
TYTV*  421-24* 

*74.  Henry  Hughes,  "State  Liberties,  or  the  Right  to  African  Contract  .Labor,’ 
in  DeBow’ s Review,  XXV,  626-53.  Report  of  the  select  committee  of  the  Louisian^ 
Senlte,  just  cited.  But  see  opinion  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Cobb,  House 
Ebcec.  Docs..  36  Cong.,  2 Sess. , IV,  Ho.  7,  632-o. 


. 


. vj«cl  1 


22* 


We  cannot  be  too  critical  of  the  motive©  either  of  those  who  favored  of 
or  those  who  opposed  reopening  the  African  slave  trade.  The  prominent  leaders 
of  the  movement  were  disunionists,  and  were  known  as  3uch  before  the  agitation 
had  well  begun.  They  saw  in  the  foreign  slave  trade  another  issue  which  would 
divide  the  sections,  and  in  the  certain  refusal  of  the  North  to  permit  the 
revival  of  the  trade  another  pretext  for  dissolving  the  Union.  Vne  debate 
turned  almost  as  much  upon  the  advisability  of  debating  the  question  as  it  did 
upon  the  advisability  of  reopening  the  trade.  -‘he  Charleston  ^preurv.  oeplored 
the  agitation  of  the  question  because  it  divided  and  distracted  the  -South.  ' - 
Others  answered  that  if  disunionists  waited  for  a united  South  they  would 
never  get  out  of  the  Union.90  Thereat  majority  of  the  Unionist  leaders  and 
newspapers  were  opposed  to  raising  the  question.  They  charged  that  the 
agitation  had  been  got  up  to  promote  disunion.91  Advocates  of  reopening  the 
slave  trade  made  the  counter  charge  that  its  opponents  were  afraid  to  debate 
the  question  on  its  merits.  They  were  willing  to  sacrifice  the  interests  of. 
the  South  to  avoid  raising  an  issue  which  might  endanger  the  stability  of  the 
Union, 9 ~ 

The  agitation  for  the  revival  of  the  slave  trade  may  be  regarded  as,  m 
a measure,  merely  a reaction  to  the  excesses  of  the  Garrisonian  abolitionists 
in  the  North.  J.  J.  Pett/gru  , in  his  report  to  the  South  Carolina  legislature 
said;  "It  is  not  intended  to  impute  directly  or  indirectly  a want  of  sincerity 
to  the  supporters  of  the  measure;  ....  but  a great  many  worthy  persons  are 
honestly  disposed  to  make  issue  with  the  North  from  a spirit  of  pure  comoative 

ns33,  without  regard  to  ostensible  causes.'  *•  , 

<j»  Continued,)  -federal.  377;  Dg^wU  *4  1*59,  iB  Mercury 

75.  Mar.  10,  1*55.  Also  speech  of  R.B.  Rhett,  July  4,  1?  5fy  in  ercurj^ 

July  7.  *0.  B.  8.,  John  A.  Jones,  of  Seorgia,  in  the  Montgomery  oowercial 

Convention,  Hodgson,  22*  0 11 » : 

fjl.  New  Orleans  Picayune.  Mar.  21,  lc<5*. 

, *2.  E.g.;W.H.  Me  Cardie , of  Mississippi,  in  the  Vicksburg  convention, 

New  York  Herald,  May  1*,  1*55. 

*3.  Ibid..  XXV,  306. 


. 


229. 


It  could  be  very  plausibly  argued  that  the  reopening  of  the  African 
slave  trade  was  necessary  if  the  South  were  to  maintain  the  sectional  equilib- 
rium  upon  which  the  maintenance  of  her  rights  and  interests  in  the  Union  was 
said  to  depend.  The  North  was  said  to  be  gaining  three  congressmen  a year  and 
rapidly  settling  new  free  states  and  territories  by  virtue  of  foreign  immigra- 
tion.*'4 How  could  the  South  maintain  her  political  equality  if  the  only  class 
of  immigration  she  could  attract  and  used  was  barred?  A bitter  contest  was 
being  waged  over  Kansas.  Kansas,  it  was  painfully  evident,  waa  being  lost  to 
the  South  because  tnere  was  no  excess  cf  slave  population  to  go  into  it. 

Plans  for  acquiring  Cuba  and  territory  in  Northern  Mexico  or  Central  America 
4th  a view  to  making  slave  holding  states  of  them  were  said  to  be  futile  without 
the  reopening  of  the  foreign  slave  trade;  for  either  there  wofild  be  no  slaves 
to  populate  them,  and  they  would  become  free  states,  or  the  older  slave  states 
would  be  drained  of  their  slave  population  and  become  free  states.  Alexander 
H.  Stephens  and  Jefferson  Davis  botn  said  the  South  could  not  hope  for  any  . 
great  extension  of  slave  territory  unless  the  slave  trade  were  reopened. 

Indeed,  without  population  to  take  advantage  of  them,  the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill 
and  the  Dred-Scott  decision  were  empty  victories.  Even  without  farther  exten- 
sion of  territory,  it  was  said,  there  was  a possibility  of  tne  loss  of  Maryland, 
Kentucky,  and  Missouri  to  slavery  through  the  transfer  South  of  the  slave 
population  and  the  influx,  of  elements  host  ile  to  it.  “There  is  no  denying; 
said  Yancey,  "that  there  is  a large  emancipation  interest  in  Virginia  and 
Kentucky  and  Maryland  and  Missouri,  the  first  fruits  of  which  we  see  in 

«4.  Temple,  of  Tennessee,  in  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  Knoxville, 
1R57,  DeBow  *3  Review,  XXIII,  319. 

b5.  Stephens!,  farewell  address  to  his  constituents  A“^;a- 
July  2,  lft 59,  in  Cleveland,  Alexander  fk  Stephens,  637  ff.  Davis  quo.ed 

Cairnes,  The  J1  a^e  ^nwer,  253  n. 


230 


^6 

Henry  Winter  Davis,  Cassius  M.  Clay  and  Thomas  Hart  Benton." 

Advocates  of  reviving  the  3lave  trade  contended  that  the  measure  was 
necessary  to  secure  slavery  against  the  attacks  of  present  or  future  foes 
within  the  cotton  state  themselves.  If  there  should  arise  a serious  shortage 
of  labor,  Northern  and  European  labor,  unfriendly  to  slavery,  would  come  in  to 
supply  the  deficiency.  Governor  Adams,  of  South  Carolina,  sain  that,  i • 

South  could  not  supply  the  demand  for  slave  labor,  "we  must  expect  to  be  supplied 
with  a species  of  labor  we  do  not  want,  and  vdiich  is  from  the  very  nature 
things  antagonistic  to  our  inst  itutions."*7  Fears  were  expressed  that  the 
"labor  base"  was  already  becoming  too  narrow,  "We  need  to  strengthen  this 
institution/4,  said  Yancey;  "and  how  better  can  we  do  that  than  by  showing  tne 
non-slaveholding  class  of  our  citizens  that  they  can  buy  a negro  for  $200, 
which,  in  a few  years, by  his  care  and  instruction,  will  become  worth  a thousand 
dollars?"**  Some  of  these  agitators  accepted  the  "irrepressible  conflict- 
doctrine.  "Even  in  Tennessee,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi^  Louisiana,", 
said  L.W.  Spratt,  "there  is  a large  class  of  persons  who  have  to  make  their 
ovra  bread  with  their  own  hands,  and  these  are  distinctly  conscious  that  there 
i3  a difference  between  'labor*  and 'slave  labor'."'9  Opponents  of  reopening 
t-toe  slave  trade  denied  that  it  would  make  slavery  more  secure:  Slavery  was 

most  secure  when  the  prices  of  slaves  were  highest,  ' They  also  denied  tne 
presence  in  the  South  of  a large  class  inimical  to  slavery.  Roger  a.  Pryor- 
characterized  it  a "foul  libel  upon  the  citizens  of  the  South  to  thus  endorse 

36.  In  So,  Com,  Conv.,  Montgomery,  DeBow_'s_  Review,  Xa  3 , — . 

37,  Charleston  Daily  Courier,  Nov.  2o,  1356. 

33.  DeBow's  Review,  XXIV,  537. 

m.  "R^Xrt  31ave  Trade  - Wade  to  the  3,  Conv.  at  Montgomery  etc. 

in  DeBow's  Review,  XXIV,  473-91  (Quotation  on  page  439). 

90.  E.fi^H.3. Foote,  at  Vicksburg  convention,  ftffowlg,  Review,  XXV Ii,  P - ; 
Pettigru,  Minority  Report  in  3.C.  Legislature,  ibid.,  XXV,  1?6. 


' 


, 


, ' 


, 


231 


what  Greeley  and  Seward  have  been  asserting  so  many  years " He  a-Jmitted 

that  "emigrees"  from  the  North  might  be  considered  hostile  to  slavery.  The 
facts  seem  to  have  been  against  Pryor's  c ontention.91 

Everywhere  in  the  South  that  white  laborers  came  into  competition  wi . n 
a lave  3 there  was  hostility  on  the' part  of  the  whites  toward  negroes  and  their 
masters  and  a demand,  not  for  emancipation  of  slaves,  to  be  sure,  but  for  their 
exclusion  from  the  employments  in  which  compet it  ion  was  felt.  This  spirit 
was  noticeable  especially  among  mechanics  and  artisans  and  unskilled  laborers  in 
the  cities.  In  South  Carolina  the  white  mechanics  memorialized  the  legislature, 
l*5*-9,  for  laws  prohibiting  slaves  from  hiring  their  own  time  and  working 
mechanical  employments.92  In  the  Southern  Commercial  Contention  a Vicks ourg, 
Mr.  Purdon,  of  Mississippi,  offered  resolutions  which  had  been  adopted  by  a 
meeting  of  white  mechanics  condemning  the  practice  of  making  public  mechanics 
of  negroes  and  declaring  that  slave  labor  should  be  confined  to  the  corn, 
cotton,  and  sugar  plantations,93  In  Alabama  and  North  Carolina  also  there  was 
opposition  to  the  employment  of  slaves  in  mechanical  pursuits.94  the 

latter  state,  working  men's  associations  began  the  agitation  for  the  ad  valorem 
tax  upon  slave  property,  which  became  the  leading  issue  of  state  politics 
during  the  few  years  Immediately  preceding  the  Tar.95  The  author  of  ij 12. 
Impending  Crisis  of  the  South  claimed  to  represent  the  free  ,.aorr  of  I"rtn 
Carolina  with  whose  development  slavery  interfered.  In  New  Orleans  arid 
cities  of  the  South  the  practice  of  employing  slaves  as  draymen  was  abandoned 

91.  DeBow  *s  Review.  XXI V,  5fil. 

92.  Extract  from  the  report  of  the  committee  on  »gro  . po pulat: ion, 

J.  Harlston  Read,  Jr.  Chairman,  in  DeBgOa  S«aU£l>  XX' *•  ou0  ' 

S3.  Ibid..  XXVII,  102.  See  also  Olmsted,  Cotton 

94.  Montgomery  Dailx  Confedept.^^n.  19  1JS9; 

tion  flHl^i^.  N.C.  against  Mgro  mechanrcs) 

95.  j.w.  Moore,  Hj2tsa»x2asa..2s£^a/  , me 

Carolina  on  the  Eve.  of  Secession, " in  A^.^.JZSSSj,  -1  ■ •• 


232 


because  of  the  objections  of  whites. 

Hor  were  all  of  those  who  favored  the  restriction  of  slave  labor  to  the 
plantations  working  men.  Others  favored  it  to  prevent  a -war  between  free  labor 
and  slave  labor  in  our  midst,"  to  make  "bite  labor  -aristooratic"  and  invite 
immigration,  and  to  obviate  difficulties  of  controlling  slaves  in  cities  and 
towns.97  Immigrants  from  the  north  and  Europe  were  generally  unfimely  to  slavery 
There  were  farming  communities  in  the  cotton  states  from  which  the  "bites  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  all  negroes  expelled.98  In  several  of  the  slaveholding 
states,  notably  Alabama,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  and  Virginia,  there  were  poli- 
tical divisions  based  upon  the  division  of  eaoh  into  a farming,  largely  non--.la.ve- 
holding  section  and  a planting  section  or  black  belt.  The  people  of  the  faming 
sections  were  not  generally  hostile  to  slavery,  but  they  did  resent  the  political 
dominance  of  the  planters.  So  the  fears  of  Spratt  and  others  that  opposition 
to  slavery  might  grow  up  in  its  very  midst  were  not  at  all  groundless. 

All  of  these  classes  hostile  or  potentially  hostile  to  negroes  or  slavery 

or  both,  were  opposed  to  reopening  the  African  slave  trade.  If  the  South  were 

to  have  immigration,  they  preferred  that  It  be  white  i'-nmigration.  They  were 

joined  by  those  Who,  "bile  devoted  to  slavery,  believed  it  a doomei  institution. 

If  emancipation  should  ever  occur,  the  South  would  have  a quite  sufficient 

99 

race  problem  with  the  natural  increase  of  her  existing  negro  population. 

On  the  question  whether  or  not  it  would  be  to  the  economic  interest  of  the 
cotton  planters  and  the  South  to  increase  the  labor  force  engaged  in  the  produc- 
tion of  cotton  by  the  importation  of  slaves  from  abroad,  there  was  a difference 

96.  DeBow*  5 Review.  XXIV,  602. 

97.  Charleston  Courier,  Deo.  28,  1856,  letter  on  -Policy  of  Planters-; 

So,  Quar.  Review,  XXVI,  447. 

98.  Olmsted,  A Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  336  and  passim. 


99.  DeBow*  s Review.  XXVII,  219. 


233 


of  opinion.  In  the  opinion  of  the  advocate,  of  reopening  the  .lave  trade,  the 
demand  for  cotton  was  growing  so  rapidly  that  production  could  he  materially 

increased  without  reducing  the  price.  A failure  'ne  . - 

produce  sufficient  cotton  to  supply  the  demand  might  result  temporarily  in 

exorbitant  prices  which  would  stimulate  production  in  other  quarters  of  the 

globe,  and,  consequently,  cause  the  lose  of  America's  monoply  and  finally  a 

permanent  decline  of  prices,  The  cotton  crop  could  not  be  sufficiently 

increased  without  fresh  supplies  of  labor.  Reopening  toe  JJ~ 

would  supply  the  deficiency.  Further,  a revival  of  the  slave  trade  would  lower 

the  prices  of  slaves  and  thus  reduce  the  cost  of  production. 

As  for  the  possibility  of  using  white  labor  some,  who,  as  we  have  seen, 
believed  it  available,  considered  it  undesirable;  others,  waiving  the  ques'  ion 
of  desirability,  professed  to  believe  it  unavailable.  Many  seem  to  have 

believed,  the  assertion  was  so  frequently  made,  » as  one  ± *"»  *n  "he 

cotton,  rice  and  sugar  regions,  slave  labor  is  not  only  more  productive,  . 

but  is  the  only  species  of  labor  which  can  be  depended  upon  for  tne  cultivation 

ofttese  great-  staples "1C0  Those  who  made  this  assertion  knew,  of  course, 

that  thousands  of  non-slaveholding  whites  were  engaged  in  a small  way  in  the 

production  of  cotton.  DeBow  estimated  the  number  so  engaged  in  1*50  at  100,000; 

JL  01 

the  number  of  slaved  employed  in  the  cotton  fields  he  set  at  "00,000. 
great  majority  of  the  planter  claee  seem  to  have  talcen  little  intereaJ  in  the 
poor  whites , and  to  have  had  less  faith  in  macing  them  productive  member,  of 
society.  Ae  for  European  labor,  it  was  not  forthcoming,  whether  for  climatic, 
social,  or  other  reasons.  Said  DeBow:  "it  is  plain,  and  time  and  events  have 
demonstrated  the  fact,  that  It  is.  not  European  labor  which  wg.  gB*,  that 

100.  A.J.  Roane,  of  Washington,  in  id . , XX,  ""l. 

101.  Industrial  Resources  si.  the.  SjnrthsEa  a>£  leatern  iiatee,  il,  J.0i. 


234 


labor,  during  so  long  anexper»nt,  has  not.  taken  foot  hold  in  our  limits, 
evidencing  thus  an  incapacity  to  adopt  itself  to  our  conditions  and  to  become 
amalgamated  with  us."108  Naturally  the  planters  themselves,  from  economic 
motives  alone,  (although  this  aspect  of  the  matter  was  hot  publicly  discussed) 
would  not  invite  competition  from  a large  n^ber  of  white  farmers  whether  native 

or  immigrant. 

Opponents  of  reopening  the  slave  trade  denied  that  it  would  benefit  the 

agricultural  interests.  A material  increase  in  the  cotton  crop  would  depress 

prices.  Cheap  cotton  would  benefit  only  the  manufacturer;  America*  position 

as  the  chief  source  of  raw  cotton  was  not  endangered.  Slaves  from  Africa  wouio 

constitute  a poor  grade  of  labor,  and,  therefore,  would  not  lessen  the  cost  of 

103 

production,  however  much  they  might  depress  the  price  of  slaves.' 

Advocates  of  the  reopening  of  the  African  slave  trade  claimed  that  it  would 
be  beneficial  to  other  industries  as  well  a,  agriculture.  The***  ocstacle, 
they  said,  was  lack  of  labor.  As  Jong  a,  cotton  culture  raid  more  for  labor 
than  other  employments  could  afford,  it  was  idle  to  attempt  to  divert  labor  to 
them.104  The  use  of  such  an  argument  was  plainly  an  attempt  to  meet  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  slave  trade  of  those  who  were  urging  diversification 
a proper  policy  for  the  South.  The  argument  was  l*gely  specious,  in  making 
it  the  economic  argument  for  the  slave  trade  was  in  part  abandoned.  Diverse  i, 
cationists  were  not  desirous  of  diverting  labor  to  less  profitable  indus-ries. 

In  their  opinion,  the  development  of  varied  industry  would  benefit  all.  "he 

, + a i av  lab  ox'  might  be  used  in  manufactures, 

suggestion,  which  ms  made,  that  slave  mooi  • 

4 -,.s~h+  rt  had  been  tried  with  small  success.  However, 

could  not  carry  great  **Jight.  It  Deen 

102.  DeSv^'s,  Herrin,  XXVII,  232.  s f.  Legislature, 

103.  J.J.Pettigru,  minority  report-  of  a c™:^_®enater  Brooke  of  Visa. , 

DeBow»a  Review,  XXV,  l66-l*b;  21  <-*  >■',  3Pe  f the  speeches 

” “VickTbTrg  Convention,  iDid.,  XXVII,  o60-b„  anc 

and  papers  against  reopening  the  slave  ^ra.  e,  3--ratt  MRenort  on  the 

104.  The  best  statement  of  this  argument  is  in  L. ^ - 473„91. 

Slave  Trade"  et€.,  Montgomery  Convention,  in  r£^— 


. 


. 


. 

* 


■ 


t 

4 

. 


tb efrtat  bitacle  to  the  development  of  diversified  industry  in  the  tout  was 
not  so  much  lack  of  labor  as  a deficiency  of  capital.  There  was  much  unprof  it- 
ably  employed  white  labor  in  the  S&uth,  On  the  very  eve  of  the  'var,  .Villiam 
Gregg  wrote:  "The  idea  that  we  lack  laborers  at  the  South,  and  will  be  under 
the  necessity  of  importing  wild  Africans,  is  preposterous."  He  told  why  the 
immigrant  did  not  come  South.  When  he  learn3  that  "one  half  of  our  white 
oeople,  who  are  willing  to  work,  cannot  procure  employment  — that  able-bodied 
men  are  roaming  about  the  country-  glad  to  get  work  at  seventy-five  cents  per 
day  and  find  themselves  - while  similar  labor  commands  a dollar  or  more  at  the 
North  and  West,  is  it  at  all  surprising  that  he  does  not  come  to  the  South?"l-'^ 
^agaan  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  3laveholding  elemen1'  in  the  South 
including  advocates  of  the  reopening  of  the  slave  trade,  feared  the  development 
of  white  labor  and  sought  to  prevent  it  by  keeping  the  white  laborers  in  a 
minority.  They  neither  wished  to  employ  profitably  tnat  already  in  ne  m^uth 
or  to  invite  immigration.  Gregg  and  others  of  his  way  of  thinking,  on  ^he 
contrary,  had  no  fear  of  white  labor.  They  wanted  to  put  the  wnites  11  ^ 

as  well  as  the  blacks,  and  they  were  inclined  to  welcome  immigration  from  the 
North  and  Europe,  They  professed  'to  believe  that  a white  population,  n ' 
ably  employed,  would  not  be  inimical  to  slavery.  They  were  not  hostile  to 
slavery,  but  they  saw  no  necessity  for  subordinating  every  other  interest  to 
t hi*  s ingle  one.  Reopening  the  African  3lave  trade,  could  it  have 

been  accomplished,  would  have  been  a measure  to  perpetuate  * he  '-a  are 
the  South.  The  New  Orleans  Picayune  took  note  of  this  fact.  After  describing 
at  some  length  the  progress  being  made  in  manufactures  and  internal  improve- 
ments and  the  changes  which  were  coming  over  the  South,  it  said  : "It  is  worse 
than  folly  to  arrest  the  present  direction  of  capital  and  enterprise  by  plans 
whose  effect,  if  successfully  carried  into  execution,  w^uld  restore  the  former 


. 


236 


1 o6 

tendency  of  all  Southern  enterprise  to  the  channel  of  agriculture." 

It  could  not  be  concealed  that  there  was  very  strong  opposition  to  the 

foreign  slave  trade  ©a  moral  and  religious  grounds.  L.  7.  Spratt,  the  arch- 

1^7 

agitator  said  all  the  women  and  all  the  "pious"  were  against  him,  ’'  The 

influx  of  a horde  of  barbarians,  said  opponents,  would  change  Southern  slavery 

from  a patriarchal  institution  to  one  like  that  of  Cuba  where  cruelty  and 

severity  were  necessary  to  control  thh  slaves.1'^  The  people  of  the  South  were 

very  sensitive  to  the  opinions  of  the  world.  "This  proposition,  if  endorsed, 

109 

would  shock  the  moral  sentiment  of  Christ iandom,  " said  Koger  A.  Pryor, - 

The  people  of  the  border  states  were  almos  ^unanimously  opposed  to  the 
agitation  of  the  3lave  trade  proposal.  They  were  charged  (by  W.L.Yancey  and 
others)  with  being  desirous  of  maintaining  the  high  prices  of  slaves  because 

11C 

they  held  the  position  of  sellers  of  slaves  to  the  buyers  in  the  cotton  states. 
Virginians,  against  whom  the  charge  was  particularly  made,  repelled  the  charge 
with  indignation.  Virginia  was  prospering,  they  said.  She  had  opened  a - ield 
for  3lave  Tabor  which  rendered  it  profitable  at  home, *'•©  douot  many  slave 
owners  in  Virginia  and  other  slave  selling,  3tates  were  interested  in  keeping 
prices  up.  But  we  need  not  emphasise  economic  motives  to  explain  the  opposition 
in  the  border  states.  They  were  the  states  with  the  largest  non-slaveholding 
copulation,  the  largest  foreign  element  (excepting  Louisiana,  of  the  cotton 
states)^  and  the  largest  Northern  element.  In  each  of  the  border  states  xhere 
106.  May  22,  1*5*.  107,  DeBow^  Review.  XXIV,  592. 

10*.  J,J,  Pettigru,  Roger  A.  Pryor,  H,.7,  Hil3.iard,  io in . , XX;,  289  ff ; XX^, 
5*2,  592. 

109.  DeBow's  Review,  XXIV,  5*2.  Russell  formed  a different  impression.  In 
Charleston  he  overheard  a conversation  on  reopening  the  slave  trade.  "One  made 
the  remark  that  the  South  now  paid  little  regard  to  what  Nngland  might  think  of 
the  matter  ...  I was  somewhat  mortified  to  find  how  little  impression  ail  that 
has  been  said  and  written  about  slavery  has  had  on  those  whose  pecuniary  inter- 
ests are  interwoven  with  the  instit ut ion, " North  Ame r ic a , 162. 

110.  Yancey  in  the  Montgomery  Convention,  DeBov; 1 :•  Review,  XXIV,  5*5. 

111.  Wm.  Ballard  Preston’s  reply  to  Yancey,  ibid, , XX IV , 5S5. 


237 


was  considerable  emancipation  sentiment.  Being  nearer  the  North,  their  people 
were  more  sensitive  to  criticisms  of  slavery  than  the  people  farther  south. 

Their  institution  was  milder  and  more  patriarchal  and  their  moral  repugnance 
to  the  slave  trade  had  not  been  blunted  by  familiarity  with  it. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  although  every/  c oa3t  state  had  either  laws  or 
constitutional  provisions  or  both  against  the  foreign  slave  trade,  not  one  of 
them  was  repealed.  Not  a single  state  legislature  went  so  far  as  to  pas3 
resolutions  demanding  the  repeal  of  the  Federal  laws  against  it.  In  Mississippi, 
where,  with  the  exceptions  of  Louisiana  and  Texas,  the  movement  was  strongest, 
the  Democratic  party  was  afraid  to  take  it  up  as  a new  political  i3sue,^''  In 
South  Carolina,  after  two  years  of  agitation,  only  in  the  Charleston  district 
was  it  made  an  issue  in  the  political  campaign  of  1^5#.  South  Carolina 
leaders  who  found  the  agitation  prejudicial  to  the  cause  of  disunion  by 
dividing  the  South  were  able  to  silence  the  agitation  in  all  but  two  of  the 
newspapers  of  the  state.  Sectional  politics  was  no  doubt  largely  responsible 
for  the  origin  cfthe  agitation.  Once  begun,  however,  it  is  questionable 
whether  considerations  of  sectional  politics  did  not  operate  more  strongly 
avainst-  the  movement  than  for  it.  A fair  conclusion  perhaps  would  be  that  only 
in  two  or  three  Southwestern  slave  states  was  the  movement  strong  enough  to 
have  insured  legalizing  the  reopening  of  the  trade  had  not  federal  laws  imposed 
an  obstacle^4 And  the  strength  of  the  movement  there  can  be  attributed  chief!, 
to  economic  causes!  - .culture  was  expanding  rapidly!  Thousands  of  slaves 
were  being  bought  for  the  plantations  at  prices  so  high  as  to  absorb  a large 
3hare  of  the  profits. 

The  comparative  prosperity  of  Southern  agriculture  during  the  decade  before 

112,  Henry  S,  Foote,  Scylla  and_  CharybdiSj_  2 54, 

113,  DeBow»s  Review.  XXVII,  364,  remarks  pf  Mr,  Farrow  of  3.C. 


113.  (X.  Se.e  ft,  A??/y\ 


238 


the  Uar  was  reflected  to  a degree  in  other  industries.  In  1850  there  were 
2,004.37  miles  of  railroads  in  the  Southern  states  constructed  at  a cost  of 

§42,181,665.  In  1860  the  mileage  was  8,946.9  representing  a cost  for  construction 

114 

of  §237,376,097.  Unlike  the  railroads  of  the  West  they  had  not  "been  built 

115 

entirely  with  capital  borrowed  in  the  East  or  abroad.  Southern  promoters  ex- 
perienced difficulty  in  selling  their  bonds  in  the  North  or  in  England.  Public 

opinion  demanded  that  the  roads  be  built,  and  every  expedient  was  resorted  to  to 

* 

sell  the  stock  at  home.  Because  of  the  difficulty  of  raising  capital,  Southern 
railroads  had  been  economically  built;  and  too  often,  cheaply  constructed  and 
poorly  equipped.  Traffic  had  proved  light  and  dividends  generally  small;  the 
mileage  had  been  extended  beyond  the  immediate  requirements;  although  by  1860 
there  was  promise  of  better  conditions  in  the  industry. 

The  rapid  extension  of  agriculture,  under  the  influence  of  higher  prices, 
naturally  absorbed  most  of  the  capital  accumulated  from  the  profits  of  the  indus- 
try. The  building  of  the  railroads  likewise  constituted  a heavy  drain  upon  the 
capital  of  the  South.  Notwithstanding,  noteworthy  extensions  were  being  made  in 
several  lines  of  industry,  and  plants  already  established  were  prospering. 

The  railroads  brought  in  with  them  machine  shops  and  repair  shops.  Several 
rolling  mills  had  been  established  before  1860.  The  value  of  the  bar,  sheet, 
and  railroad  iron  made  in  the  South  increased  from  §1,504,443  in  1850  to  §2,450,119 
in  1860,  or  63  per  cent.  Railroad  cars  were  made  in  a few  shops;  and  the 
Tredegar  Locomotive  works  at  Richmond  made  19  of  the  470  locomatives  made  in  the 
United  States  in  1860.  Stationary  engines  were  being  constructed  in  many  places. 
The  production  of  coal  had  nearly  trebled;  although  the  aggregate  was  still 

114.  Ringwalt,  Revel oioment  of  Transportation  Systems  in  the  U.  S. , 151. 

115.  Hunt's  Merchants*  Magazine.  XLII,  315;  Kettell,  Southern  Uealth  and 
Northern  Profits.  50,  88;  Powell,  Notes  on  Southern  Uealth  and  Northern  Profits; 
Con/?.  Globe.  32  Cong.,  1 Sess. , Appx. , 1056. 

116.  All  the  statistics  given  in  the  next  few  pages  are  taken  from  the 
reports  of  the  Sixth,  Seventh,  and  Eighth  Censuses  mil  ess  otherwise  specified. 

The  term,  "the  South",  is  used  to  include  only  the  eleven  states  which  seceded. 

The  census  reports  include  mining  and  lumbering  with  manufacturing;  and  there 
would  be  no  point  in  making  a distinction  here. 


.* 


■ 


. . '■ 


239 


small,  about  one-ninth  ot'  the  total  production  of  the  United  States,  The  iron 
industry  had  notjyet  been  greatly  affected  by  the  coming  of  the  railroads;  in 
tne  production  of  pig  iron  there  was  a decline  between  1*50  and  1*60. 

During  the  years  just  before  the  war,  the  cotton  factories,  after  several 
years  of  great  difficulties  were  again  prosperous.  In  1*55  the  Georgia  factories 
were  reported  in  thriving  condition*  A year  or  two  later  similar  reports  came 
frorr  northern  Alabama  and  western  Tennessee*  * ' Occasionally  the  building  of  a 
new  factory  was  reported*  The  attention  of  the  North  was  attracted  to  “he  re- 
vival.11 & General  Charles  T.  James,  of  Rhode  Island,  again  put  nis  services  at 

119 

the  disposal  of  any  company  proposing  to  establish  new  factories.  " During  tne 
decade  1*50-1*60  the  number  of  cotton  factories  in  Georgia  grew  from  29  to  S3, 
the  number  of  hands  employed  from  2,107  to  2, *13,  and  the  value  of  the  product 
from  $1,395,056  to  $2,371,207,  or  69.97  per  cent.  These  gains  made  Georgia  tne 
leading  cotton  manufacturing  state  of  the  South,  and,  in  part,  justified  her 
reputation  as  the  "Massachusetts  of  the  noutn."  considerable  gains  weie  . nc.e 
also  in  Alabama  and  Tennessee,  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  made  no  p- ogress  *n 
.his  industry*  South  Carolina  showed  a decline.  The  revival  in  a he  cotton  man- 
ufacturing industry  came  too  late  to  greatly  improve  the  showing  tne  Goutn  as  a 
whole  made  in  1*60.  The  progre33  in  the  South  had  been  smaller  proportionally 
than  in  the  country  at  large,  and  the  product  of  Southern  factories  was  only 
one-fourteenth  of  the  total  +’or  the  United  states. 

The  value  of  the  product  of  Southern  woolen  manufactures  increased  143.55 
per  cent  between  1*50  and  1*60;  the  increase  for  the  country  at  large  was  42.14 
per  cent.  During  the  same  period  the  value  of  men's  clothing  produced  in  the 
South  increased  <*5.96  per  cent;  in  the  United  States,  51.55  per  cent,  ior 
and  shoes  the  percentages  of  increase  were  *9,9  and  70.27.  Tne  production  of 

117.  Aunt's  Merchants'  "v  .o:..  c,  XXXVII,  111;  XXX,  7 5b. 

11*.  Charleston  Me  rear., , May  2 5,  1*5*. 

119,  DeBcw 's  Review,  XXV ill,  244. 


240 


paper  was  increased  almost  xnree  fold,  and  of  'Tinting  ?ver  seven  fold.  3 up  in 
the  case  of  each  of  the  items  named  the  Southern  states  produced  only  three  cr 
four  per  cent  of  the  total  output  for  the  United  States,  a quantity  entirely  in- 
adequate to  meet  the  home  demand,  A res^ectaole  beginning  had  been  made  in  the 
manufacture  of  carriages  and  coaches,  wagons  and  carts,  saddlery  and  harness, 
nails  and  srjkes,  sashe3,  d o or3 , and  blinds,  and  in  cooperage.  In  the  maou  --C - 
ture  of  agricultural  implements  progress  had  been  much  slower  than  in  she  United 
States  as  a whole.  The  South  produced  less  than  sax  per  cent  of  the  total.  Of 
the  manufacture  of  one  article,  however,  the  South  had  almost  a monopoly:  of 
57  cotton  gin  factories  an  the  United  States,  54  were  in  the  Southern  slates, 
notably  Alabama.  The  value  of  the  ship3  and  boats  built  in  the  South  in  1*60 


was  $7*9, *70,  which  sum  may  be  compared  with  $11,647,461  for  the  United  States. 

Cf  the  631  articles  listed  by  the  census  as  manufactures  of  the  United  States  in 
3.^60,  39*  were  not  made  in  the  South  in  any  quantity  whatever,  and  many  others 
were  made  only  in  insignificant  quantities.  In  these  two  classes  fell  such  ^ 
common  and  necessary  articles  as  hats  and  cap 3,  men  *3  furnishing,  wo  me  • *s  clotn- 
ing,  millinery,  carpet3  and  rugs,  furniture  and  cabinet  ware,  earthenware,  glass- 
ware, hardware  and  cutlery,  tools,  and  stoves  and  ranges.  Pacxed  meats  may  also 
be  mentioned. 

The  Southern  states  made  the  best  showing,  both  as  regards  aggregate  vs lue 
of  product  and  percentages  of  increase,  in  types  of  manufacture  wnich  ■•■eie 
closely  related  to  agriculture,  or  which  were  comparatively  simple  in  their 
-rocesses.  Thus  the  value  of  the  flour  and  meal  ground  increased  from  $14,  ■ <xt- 
597  to  $37,996,470,  or  129  per  cent,  between  1*50  and  1*60;  and  in  the  latter 
year  was  equal  to  nearly  one-fourth  the  total  vfe*ue  of  all  Southern  manufactures. 
The  value  of  lumber,  planed  and  sawed,  was  $19,696,  *63  in  1 , ' ' increase 

133  per  cent  over  1*50,  and  was  one-eighth  the  value  of  all  southern  manufac- 
tures. The  value  of  the^obaccc  manufactured  was  $14,612,442  in  per 


241. 


cent  more  than  in  1*50.  A fourth  big  item  was  turpentine,  crude  and  distilled, 
valued  at  i7,4C9,  745.  These  four  items  together  accounted  for  one* half  the 
total  value  of  the  product  cf  all  Scutnern  manufactures;  and  the  capital  in- 
vested in  their  manufacture  was  nearly  one-half  the  capital  invested  in  all  the 
manufactures  of  the  South. 

The  capital  invested  in  manufactures  in  the  South  was  13.6  per  cent  of 

the  capital  so  invested  in  the  entire  country  in  1*40,  * 10.4  per  cent  in  1 ,a/ 

and  %Vfcr  cent  in  /*#*• 

a Ihe  increase  in  capital  3«  invested  in  the  South  was  51.5  per  cent  between  1*40 
and  1°50  and  73.6  per  cent  the  following  decade;  for  the  entire  United  States 
the  percentages  were  95.5  and  91.3.  Southern  manufactures  employed  **,390  hands 
in  1* 5C  and  110,721  in  1*60,  an  increase  of  25.3  per  cent.  In  the  same  period 
the  population  of  the  eleven  Southern  states  had  grown  23,9  per  cent.  The  num- 
ber of  hands  employed  in  all  the  manufactures  of  the  United  States  in  1°5C  was 
907,  059,  in  1*60  the  number  was  1,311,246,  or  37  per  cent  more.  The  population 
of  the  United  States  was  35,4  per-  cent  greater  in  1*60  than  in  1*50. 

Statistics  are  net  available  f or  a full  comparison  of  the  progress  o.  man- 
ufactures and  agriculture,  but  comparison  in  a few  respects  may  suffice,  3e- 
* tween  1*50  and  1*60  the  value  cf  Southern  manufactures  increased  96.5  per  cent. 
During  the  same  period  the  value  of  th^cotton  cro  - increased m^jper  cent; 

fjq  reluct ,8o.3  per  cent; 

in  the  South,  96.4  per  cent.  A3  we  have  seen  the  progress  in  other  'or  :.nches  ••  * 
agriculture  was  net  great. 

Southern  cities  had  not  established  direct  trade,  nor  haa  they  become  in- 
dustrial centers.  Among  the  cities  of  the  United  States,  Hew  Orleans,  Cnar}.bs- 
ton*  Richmond,  Mobile,  Memphis,  Savannah,  and  Petersburg,  m 1^0  runuec  an 

12C.  Ihe  statistics  for  1*40  are  meager  and  can  rarely  oe  usee  f?- 

comoarisons . 


size,  , 22,  25,  27,  2b,  41,  and  50  respectively.  In  value  of  manufactures  they 
ranxed  17,  bb,  13,  79,  74,  <o£>,  and  49  respectively.  Thus  Richmond  and  Peters- 
burg only  could  be  considered  industrial  towns.  However,  as  commercial  centers 
the  towns  cf  the  South  reflected  accurately  the  prosperity  of  the  section. 

The  South  was  not  in  the  throes  of  an  industrial  revolution  at  the  outbreak 
of  the  Civil  War,  and  there  seers  to  be  little  evidence  that  she  was  upon  the 
verge  of  such  a revolution.  However,  there  were  factors  in  the  situation  which 
pointed  to  a more  rapid  development  of  varied  industry  in  the  future.  Capital 
which  might  be  sc  employed  was  accumulating.  Southern  banks  had  never  been  in  a 
stronger  condition.  The  railroads  must  soon  have  justified  their  construction  by 
giving  isolated  regions  access  to  market,  increasing  intercourse,  and  creating 
new  wants.  They  were  breaking  down  tno3e  frontier  conditions  which  because  of 
the  great  extent  of  the  section,  the  sparse  population,  and  the  natural  difficul- 
ties of  forests  and  rough  land3,  still  lingered  in  much  of  the  South.  The  atten- 
tion of  Southern  men  had  been  directed  to  the  varied  resources  of  the  land. 
Geological  surveys  had  revealed  the  coal  and  iron  fields  of  Alabama  and  Tennessee, 
lying  in  close  proximity.  Railroads  were  ready  to  penetrade  them,  and  tne  proces- 
ses were  being  developed  which  would  makejpossible  their  utilization,  3t«ck  had 
been  taken  of  the  water  power,  and  the  people  were  beginning  to  realize  what  a 
wealth  lay  in  the  forests.  Small  industrial  towns  were  springing  up  here  and 
there.  Northern  men  with  experience  in  various  branches  of  industry  were  filter- 
ing in;  Northern  capitalists,  who  theretofore  had  found  sufficient  fields  for 
investment  in  the  North  and  West  were  beginning  to  3 how  an  interest  in  the  pos- 
sibilities offered  by  the  South;  a3  were  also,  to  3ome  extent,  English  and  French 
capitalists.  It  is  conceivable  that  a temporary  depression  in  the  price  of  cot- 
ton at  the  time  might  have  given  a decided  impetus  to  the  cotton  manufacturing 
industry  just  a3  it  had  threatened  to  do  twelve  or  fifteen  years  earlier. 

These  facts  were  not  unappreciated  in  the  South.  The  New  Orleans  P ic ayung 


243. 


in  +he  autumn  of  195°,  said  the  south  had  been  making  progress,  alow  but  posi- 
tive. "Like  a bow  in  the  heaven3  after  the  3 term  clouds  have  swept  by,  we  may 
now  see,  in  looking  upon  the  results  of  the  sectional  agitations  “ f the  immeci- 

iate  past,  indications  of  the  commencement  of  a new  era  for  the  South  - an  era 

121 

singularly  marked  with  home  progress." 

3o  there  were  factors  which  operated  on  the  eve  of  the  Civix  Jifar  to  make 
the  people  of  the  South  better  content  with  their  economic  system  and  position. 
These  may  be  briefly  summarised.  1.  The  comparative  prosperity  of  Southern 
agriculture.  2.  A measure  of  prosperity  and  progress  in  other  lines  of  in- 
dustry, 3.  Confidence  that  the  possession  of  and  the  ability  to  control  a 
large  agricultural  surplus  constituted  an  element  of  great  political  powei » 

4,  A growing  c on3c iousne ss  among  slave  holders  that  any  consideraols  diversi.  i 
cation  of  industry  was  incompatible  with  the  security  ci  slavery. 


j 


121,  Quoted  in  DeBcw  »s  Rev  lev.',  XXV,  590. 


CHAPTER  IX 


Evidences  of  Economic  Motives  for  Southern  Sectionalism  During  the  ieceso  ■ rr. 

the  Co  it on  States , 1^60-1^1 . 

After  the  election  of  November,  1&60,  the  cotton  states  made  haste  to  out 
int^  execution  their  threats  of  secession  in  case  of  the  election  of  a Republi- 
can ^resident.  In  Snuth  Carolina  the  opposition  to  secession  was  very  weak  and 
ineffectual.  The  legislature  met  in  special  session,  November  5.  Tne  members 
were  almost  unanimously  for  immediate,  separate  secession,  A few  voices  were 
raised  in  favor  of  cooperation  with  other  Southern  states.  The  legislature 
called  a state  convention  meet  December  17.  With  few  exceptions  only  immedi- 
ate secessionists  were  elected  to  it.  On  the  fourth  day  the  body  unanimously 
adopted  an  ordinance  of  secession.  In  taking  this  speedy  action  South  Carolina 
was  not  +aking  a lean  in  the  dark.  Her  leaders  were  confident  that  other  states 
would  soon  follow.  They  were  assured  by  disunion  leaders  elsewhere  that  bold 
action  would  strengthen  the  disunion  movements  in  other  states.''  If  a conflict 
witn  tne  Federal  government  should  ensue,  there  could  be  no  douot  of  the  deci- 
sion of  the  cotton  states,  at  least,  upon  the  issue,  ,a3  it  would  then  oe,  of 
sustaining  a sister  state  against  coercion. 

Meanwhile  vigorous  contests  were  being  waged  in  the  other  cotton  states  be- 
tween those  for  immediate  and|separate  secession  on  the  one  hand  and  coalitions 


of  unconditional  unionists,  cobperationists,  and  temporizers  on  the  other. 

The  governors,  with  one  exception,  we re  secessionists,  and  the  legisla  ures  were 
controlled  by  secessionists.  Conventions  were  called  in  all  the  states.  Brief 
campaigns  ensued  to  influence  the  election  of  delegates  and  the  action  oT  the 
conventions.  These  campaigns  were  conducted  with  gr& at  exe;ie/rent. 
ernors  and  legislatures  anticipated  the  action  of  the  conventions  by  seizing  per 
arsenals,  and  other  United  States  property,  and  by  taking  measures  to  rut  ineir 

1,  Proceedings  and  debates  in  the  South  Carolina  Legislature.  Hew  lork 

Herald.  Nov,  9 -14,  1^60. 

2.  Speech  of  Mr,  Elmore,  Commissioner  from  Alabama,  before  tne  South  Caro- 
lina Convention,  in  New  York  ’eml  ■ . Dec.  22,  lw40. 


> 


, 


245 


respective  state  jon  a military  footing,  Congressmen  sent  infl ammat or  messages 
from  Washington  where  Senate  and  house  were  vainly  attempting  to  patch  up  another 
compromise  to  save  the  Union.  Commissioners  from  one  state  to  another  lent 
their  influence  to  the  secession  cause. 

Considering  the  tactical  advantages  of  the  immediate  secessionists,  their 
opponents  showed  unexpected  strength  in  three  states.  In  Alabama  they  elected 
4^'  of  IOC  delegates,  and  claimed  to  nave  cast  a clear  majority  of  the  vote3  in 
the  election.0  In  the  convention  they  united  upon  a substitute  proposal  for  a 
convention  of  all  the  Southern  states  at  Nashville,  and  waged  a bitter  fight  in 
..ts  behalf.  The  bitterness  of  the  .struggle  was  intensified  because  tne  align- 
ment was  the  ole.  sectional  one  between  northern  (Unionist  in  this  case)  and  souih- 
ern  Alabama,  The  struggle  did  not  cease  when  the  convention  adopted  a secession 
ordinance.  In  Georgia  the  opposition  cast  42  per  cent  of  the  popular  vote.  In 
the  convention  their  substitute  proposal  for  a convention  of  all  the  slave  hold- 
ing states  wa3  defeated  by  the  narrow  margin  of  164—133;  and  this,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  Georgia  was  already  assured  the  cooperation  of  four  states.  In 
Louisiana  also  the  contest  was  hot,  and  the  popular  vote  close;  although  in  tne 
convention  the  immediate  secessionists  prevailed  by  a large  majority.  In  Texas 
the  tactical  advantages  lay  with  the  opponents  of  secession;  for  Governor  Houston 
was  opposed  to  it  and  refused  to  call  the  legislature  in  3-oecial  session.  How- 
ever, a self- constituted  committee  of  citizens  called  an  election  for  delegates 
to  the  convention.  Their  ction  forced  Governor  Houston  to  assemble  tne  legis- 
lature, which  approved  tne  action  of  the  committee.  The  convention  met  and  pas- 
sed an  ordinance  of  secession;  the  people  approved  its  action.  After  their  defeat 
in  the  several  states  the  cooperationist  and  Unionist  leaders,  with  exceptions, 

3.  Remarks  of  W.  R.  Smith  in  tne  Alabama  Convention.  Smith,  History  and 
Debates  of  -tne  Conve  nylon  of  tne  People  of  Alabama,  67  f . ; Hodgson,  C radl e of 
the  Confederacy.  502  ff. 

4.  Avery,  History  of  Cecrmia.  145. 


expressed  a determinat ion  to  support  the  course  determined  upon  by  the  majority. 
To  conciliate  them  and  their  following,  the  secessionist  majority  admitted  them, 
to  positicns/of  power  and  trust  in  numbers  proportionate  to,  if  net  in  excess  ot , 

their  strength. 

On  February  4,  delegates  from  six  states,  soon  joined  by  delegates  from  a 
seventh,  met  at  Montgomery.  A provisional  constitution  for  tne  Confederate 
States  of  America  was  adopted.  A provisional  government  was  organised.  Commis- 
sioners were  sent  to  Washington  and  to  Europe,  Measures  were  taken  to  provide 
revenue  and  to  organise  an  army  and  navy.  A permanent  constitution  was  drafted 
by  the  Provisional  Congress  and  submitted  xo  tne  states  for  ret  if  icaxion. 

Meanwhile  the  secession  movements  in  other  slaveholding  states  had  received 
decided  checks,  although  aggressive  fights  had  been  waged  by  the  secessionists 
in  several.  In  North  Carolina  the  legislature  after  much  debate  provided  "or 
an  election  for  delegates  to  a convention  and  the  submission  to  tne  people,  at 
the  same  time,  January  2*,  of  the  question  whether  or  not  a convention  should  be 
held.  The  people  elected  82  Unionists-  and  3*  secessionists,  and  decided  against 
tne  convention  by  a small  majority.5  In  Tennessee,  the  question  of  holding  a 
convention  was  submitted  to  the  electorate  and  decided  adversely  by  a large  map.: 
j ority . In  Arkansas  the  electorate  approved  the  assembling  of  a convention,  but 
elected  delegates  a small  majority  of  whom  were  opposed  to  immediate  secession. 
The  action  of  Virginia  was  expected  greatly  to  influence  xnat  of  -he  oor 

der  slave  states.  The  legislature  met  in  special  session  at  Governor  Letcher's 
call  and  provided  for  a delegate  convention.  Ax  tne  conve  tun  ^.ec'.i  •*»,  e- 
ruary  4,  the  people  returned  a distinct  majority  against  immediate  secession. 
Although  the  secessionists  waged  a hard  fight  in  the  convention,  all  efforts  to 
pass  an  ordinance  of  secession  were  foiled  until  after  Sumter.  In  Maryland  and 
Deleware  no  conventions  met;  in  the  former  because  Governor  Hicks  refused  xo 

call  a special  session  of  the  legislature.  Governor  ^ffin.  of  Kentucky,  re- 
- fo  Avivnifll  C!  V C T_  fTD  edia,  I,  53*. 


247. 

commended  the  call  of  a convention,  but  the  legislature  refused.  In  1'issouri  a 
legif/teture  dominated  by  State  Righ  1 called  : » bu‘ 

torate  returned  an  overwhelming  rcaj  ority  of  Union  delegates.  -s  long  as  any 
hope  remained  that  Congress  or  the  Peace  Conference  would  agree  upon  a settlement 
which  would  restore  the  Union,  the  people  of  the  border  states  gave  unmistakable 
evidence  of  their  desire  to  remain  in  the  Union.  Even  after  it  became  clear  that 
no  such  settlement  was  possible,  and  when  the  question  became  one  of  choosing 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Confederate  States,  they  seem  to  have  preferred 
the  Union.  However,  notice  was  early  given  by  North  Carolina,  Virginia,  ien- 
nessee,  and  Arkansas  that  continued  adherence  to  the  Union  was  contingent  upon 
no  attempt  being  made  by  the  Federal  government  to  coerce  the  seceded  states. 

When,  after  Sumter,  President  Lincoln  issued  his  call  tor  troops, 
seceded  and  united  their  fortunes  with  the  Confederacy.  The  other  border  states 

were  saved  for  the  Union. 

With  a view  to  determine  whether  or  not  they  reveal  any  evidences  of  econ- 
omic motives  for  southern  sectionalism,  it  is  proposed  to  analyte  ,i)  v«e  argu 
meats  advanced  for  and  against  secession  after  the  election  of  Lincoln;  (2)  the 
alignment  of  the  people  upon  ^secession  issue  ; (3)  the  official  statements 
of  causes  of  secession  which  were  published;  (4)  contemporary  unofficial  essays 
at  interpreting  events;  and  (5)  the  formulation  of  the  early  economic  policies  of 
the  seceded  states  and  of  the  Confederacy.  The  considerations  determining  the 
action  of  the  border  states  were  manifestly  so  different  from  those  determining 
the  action  of  the  cotton  states  that  they  require  a separate  treatment. 

Chapter  will  deal  with  the  first  four  points  mentioned  with  special  reference  to 
the  cotton  states.  The  succeeding  chanter  will  deal  with  the  early  economic 
policies  of  the  seceded  states  and  of  the  Confederacy  and  with  the  peculiar  econ- 
omic considerations  affecting  the  decision  of  the  border  slave  states. 

There  can  be  n-  doubt  that  the  arguments  for  and  against  secession  in  the 


. 


cotton  statss  used  after  Lincoln  »a  election  related  cniefly  to  the  dangers  beset- 
ting  slavery  and  ho w the|in3t itution  could  best  be  defended.  The  leading  nrgu- 
: . rts  of  the  secessionists  may  be  summarized;  (1)  The  election  had  resulted  in 
the  triumph  of  a party  which  was  founded  upon  and  held  together  by  hostility  to 
slavery;  which  proposed  to  exclude  it  from  the  common  territories,  in  spite  of  a 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  opposed  the  acquisition  additional  slave 
territory;  which  looked  to  the  ultimate  extinction-  of  slavery,  and  whose  candi- 
date had  declared  the  Union  could  not  exisx  hair  slave  ana  aalf  fiet,  1 
South  should  acquiesce  in  Black  Republican  rule,  slavery  would  be  doomed;  ana 
the.  destruction  of  slavery  would  ruin  the  3outh.  (2)  The  triumph  of  a section- 
al party  established  a sectional  despotism  of  the  stronger  section  over  the  weak- 
er. Just  now  slavery  was  the  interest  in  gravest  danger;  but  sectional  I '• 
might  be  wielded  to  the  detriment  of  all  the  interests  of  the  -South.  The  Consti- 
tution would  not  protect  the  weaker  section  because  in  the  North  the  true  view 
of  nion  as  a federation  of  sovereign  states  had  been  lost,  and  the ^old  Fed- 

eralist idea  of  a consolidated  government  had  prevailed.  (3)  The  constitution 
was  a compact  between  equal  sovereign  states.  The  Personal  Liberty  laws  of 
Northern  states  were  violations  of  the  compact.  A violation  ot  ^ne  compact  oy 
some  of  the  parties  to  it  released  the  others  from  their  obligations  under  it. 

(4)  The  quarrel  between  the  sections  had  become  so  venomous  as  to  subvert  one  of 
the  purposes  for  which  the  constitution  had  been  formed,  namely,  to  insure 
domestic  tranquility.  The  constant  denunciation  of  the  South  and  slaver,  by  pol- 
iticians, press,  oulplt,  Platform,  and  in  the  schools  of  the  North  -as  a constant 
insult  to  the  South  anc^no  lor-or  to  be  borne.  (5)  Secession  s - - 

tional  remedy . (6)  » ™uld,  in  all  probability,  be  peaceful:  One  party  in 
the  North  believed  in  the  constitutional  right  of  secession. 

#f  the  other  had  declared  against  coercion.  Northern  industry  would  be  paralysed! 
bv  the  interruption  of  commerce  with  the  South  which  war  would  entail;  and  the. 


249. 


North  would  be  unable  t«  fight.  The  threat  of  coercion  would  unite  the  3outn, 
and  the  Northern  people  would  perceive  the  folly  of  waging  war  against  a united 
South.  (7)  The  Southern  states,  even  the  cotton  states,  together  possessed  pop- 
ulation and  resources  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  take  their  place  among  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth. 

The  opponents  of  immediate  and  separate  secession  agreed  with  the  secession- 
ists that  the  crisis  must  not  be  allowed  to  pass  without  some  action  being  taken. 
The-;  did  not  consider  separate  and  immediate  secession  the  proper  action,  hor- 
ever,  for  the  following  reasons:  (1)  The  election  of  Lincoln  was  not  a jus-  cause 

for  secession.  He  had  been  elected  in  a constitutional  manner.  The  politicians 
of  the  §outh  were  partly  responsible  for  this  elec  ion,  -he  border 
not  sustain  the  cotton  states  on  such  an  issue;  it  was  doubtful  if  the  people  of 
the  cotton  states  could  be  united  upon  it.  It  would  be  better  to  wai,  >«r  =''  e 
overt  act  against  the  rights  of  the  South  on  the  part  of  the  Lincoln  government; 
that  would  unite  the  South.  (2)  Lincoln  would  be  a minority  president.  Both 
houses  of  Congress  and  the  Supreme  Court  would  be  controlled  by  the  Democrats, 
Lincoln  could  not  even  choose  a cabinet  without  consent  of  the  Senate;  the  inter- 
ests of  the  South  were  in  no  immediate  danger,  (3)  The  Personal  Liberty  laws  were 
unconstitutional  and  unfriendly;  butane  South  had  never  made  a united  effort  tor 
their  repeal.  This  should  be  done.  If  appeals  failed,  retaliatory  legislation 
might  be  tried.  (4)  While  anti-slavery  sentiment  had  become  fanatical  with  many, 

much  of  the  anti-slavery  agitation  was  due  to  politicians,  l-i»rt  . ..  o 

had  used  the  slavery  question  to  inflame  the  passions  of  the  people.  A revolu- 
tion in  the  attitude  toward  slavery  was  even  then  in  progress  in  the  North  and 
in  England.  The  South  had  many  friends  in  the  North;  they  should  not  be  deserts'. 
(5)  Peaceful  secession  was  an  absurdity  - unless,  possibly,  the  entire  3-utn 
could  be  united.  The  South  was  not  prepared  for  war.  The  masses,  who  must  tig* 
it,  were  not  convinced  of  the  necessity  for  secession,  (i)  Delay  would  unite  the 


. 


2 50 


South.  Let  all  the  slave  states  get  together  in  convention  and  deliver  an  ulti- 
matum. If  that  were  rejected,  all  would  go  out  together.  The  cotton  states  had 
no  right  to  attempt  to  dictate  to  the  other  slaveholding  states.  (7)  The  cotxon 
states  alone  would  make  a contemptible,  obscure,  little  republic  whose  rl^ts  no 
foreign  nation  would  respect.  Wars  and  strife  would  be  its  lot.  *he  disso- 

lution of  the  Union  would  be  hailed  in  Europe  .as  the  failure  of  free  government. 

It  was  a duty  to  mankind  to  attempt  to  preserve  -it. 

These,  it  is  believed,  were  the  arguments  most  frequently  used  in  ine  cotton 
states  during  the  few  weeks  which  elapsed  bexween  the  election  of  Lincoln  and 
secession.6  Their,  use,  however,  c.  ade  to  prove  too  much.  The 

election  of  1«60  turned  ostensibly  upon  the  slavery  issue.  The  eiec-.io.. 

Republican  president  had  for  several  years  been  discussed  and  announced  as  the 
proper  occasion,  or  a sufficient  cause,  for  the  seceessio  t he  S uthern  states.| 
An  effort  had  been  made  during  the  campaign  to  commit  as  many  as  possible  to  se- 
cession in  case  of  Lincoln's  election.  After  the  event,  conditional  disunionists,| 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  often  they  attributed  the  result  to  the  'oily  or 
wickedness  of  Southern  leaders,  could,  now  tnat  it  was  a &£.  MMfflU,  i — 

tification  and  good  conscience  see  in  it  a necessity  for  secession.  Secession 
Eerse  sentiment  in  the  South  had  been  a growth  of  thirty  years,  it  was  a known 
and  dependable  quantity,  it  ccnlfet  *•  increased  over  night,  unconditional  se- 

cvrrnrvpnts  to  fit  the  occasion.  The  occa- 
ces sionists  would  naturally  adapt  tneir  r.rgumen  - - 

Sion  required  that  advantage  be  taken  of  the  excitement  of  the  fuonc  n*  as 
result  of  Lincoln's  election.  Such  considerations/as  these  must  be  kept  in  mind 

in  any  study  of  secession. 

However,  the  secession  oerse  arguments  were  not  altogether  neglected  during 

the  canvass.  Very  few  advocates  of  secession  spoke  tor  it  without  expressing  the 

• u +ua  i-3  ba^ed  are  too  many  to  enumerate 

6.  The  sources  upon  wmch  this  su  . -.j  erate  hec ords  of  the 

here.  Special  mention  might  be  made  of  Candler,  Tne  w?,^iera^,  — 

State  of  Georgia.  Vol.  I,  and  Smith,  oj^.cit. 


251. 

vi6W  that  the  Union  had  been  unequal  in  its  material  benefits.  Scarcely  one  ad- 
vocated secession  who  did  not  express  the  belief  that  secession  would  be  followed 
by  prosperity.  Said  Yancey  at  the  close  of  an  argument  based  upon  Northern  vio- 
lation. of  Southern  rights:  "While  ever  loyal  to  a constitutional  Union,  I have 

been  satisfied  that  if  Alabama,  even,  reassured  her  full  power  and  sovereignty  it 
would  be  attended  by  a glorious  prosperity."7  Host  of  Alexander  a.  Stephens 
famous  Union  speech  before  the  Georgia  legislature.  November  14,  1*60.  was  de- 
voted to  proving  that  in  the  Union  the  South  as  well  as  the  North  had  "grown  grea 
prosperous  and  happy,",  and  was  in  refutation  of  one  by  Robert  Toombs,  who  had 
resented  a contrary  view/  DeB^  MiSS  continued  to  give  the  unconditional 
d is  unionist  arguments/  The  New  York  pacers  commented  upon  the  "commercial  view" 
of  the  Union  which  was  being  taken  at  the  South.10  The  existence  of  di.uni.n- 
ists  per,  se.  was  assumed  at  every  point  of  the  contests  to  control  the  convention, 
which  were  to  decide  the  question  of  secession.  Union  orators  often  prefaced 
their  remarks  by  saying  that  their  argument,  were  not  addressed  to  unconditional 
d is  unionists  but  only  to  those  who  preferred  a "const  it  umional  - 

in  which  the  rights  of  tne  3.»th  would  be  respected/1  Gecess uonists  frequently 
denied  being  of  the  per  se  type:  it  may  have  been  considered  good  tactics  to  do 


It  us  impossible  to  determine  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  new  many  in  tne 
cotton  states  had  by  1*60  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  true  mt  :■ 

the  South  lay  in  separate  nationality  irrespective  of  theoutcomeof  tne  pending 

presidential  election.  There  were  no  test  votes  on  the  question.  Turing  tne 

7,  Letter  of  Nov.  15,  1*60.  in  New  York JSiSii  1M  f(  iieK 

/.  Candler,  Confederate.  Records,  of.  tne  state  o£  Georgia, 

yorx  Msg  ;ux>  93-101.  See  aleo,  ibid. . 53.  114-16. 

10.  I have  used  the  hew  ^or*  ^ t lailedgeville,  Ga.,  Hev.  *5, 

11.  For  example,  Bonj . H*  Hill  „*  * • H-a  Life  speeches  and  Writings, 

1^40,  Hill,  Senator  Beni  am  in  H.  -^ll  Hi  — 

oO  0 
(J+s  r 


252 


presidential  campaign  supporters  of  Bell  and  of  D-uglas  charged  the  Breckinridge 
men  with  having  broken  up  the  Democratic  party  with  the  design  cf  making  possiole 
the  election  of  a Black  Republican  president  and  consequent  dissolution  of  the 
Union;  they  appealed  to  the  voters  to  “rebuke"  the  secessionists.  The  statement 
has  sometimes  been  made  that  vote  for  Breckinridge  and  the  combined  vote  for  Bell 
ujlas  indicates  fairly  accurately  the  relative  strength  of  the  secessionist 
and  Unionists  respectively.12  The  statement  is  inaccurate,  an  analysis  of  tne 
result  of  the  election  snows  that  many  voted  against  Srecrf nridge  to  rebuke  one 
secessionists,  and  many  were  attracted  to  Breckinridge  by  the  secessionist  ten- 
dencies of  is  following,  but  in  the  main  the  people  divided  according  to  their 
old  party  affiliations.  In  Seorgia,  for  example,  fourteen  counties  went  * or 
Breckinridge  in  November  which  elected  Union  delegates  to  the  State  Convention 
in  December;  and  fifteen  counties  which  gave  majorities  for  Bell  and  Douglas 
elected  secession  delegates.13  Northern  Alabama  gave  a majority  for  Br  ckln- 
ridge  (although  somewhat  less  than  the  normal  Democratic  majority)  but  was 
strongly  against  secession.  The  secessionists  from  principle  had  steadily  grown 
an  numbers.  Theirlleaders  were  able  and  determined.  They  had  become  sarong 
enough  to  gain  control  of  tne  Democratic  party  organisation  in  several  staves. 
But  there  iafno  reason  to  believe  they  were  in  a majority  except  in  Boutn  Caro- 
lina. L.  Q.  C • Lamar,  describing  the  state  of  public  orinio o i.i  .ne 
shortly  after  Lincoln's  election,  said:  "There  is  a fourth  class  of  energetic, 

.solute,  and  high  spirited  men  who  consider  the  federal  Government  a failure, 


re; 


the  conne 


ct ion  of  Northern  and  -Southern  States  as  unnatural,  • ne 


dence  of  the  latter  a sup 


even  abrupt  secession 


reme  good.  These  are  for  immediate,  unconditional, 

_ This  class  is  dominant  in  one  State,  commands 
perhaps  a majority  in  another,  and  is  influential  in  all."14  The  statement  was 

12.  See  Avery,  History  of.  Georgia,  13:. 

13.  See  Phillips,  Oeor;;^a  and  — ".*  r „ 4is 

- . Letter  ..  P.  rTttdd.ll,  Esc.  10,  1*60,  - yes,  L.  1-  _ ■ m. 

Life,  ll'ces  • 'Q  -l.~  w e c hs_i_,  ' 0 3 T • 


253. 


substantially  correct* 

After  Lincoln'3  election  this  class  was  joined  by  those  wno  had  not  desired 
secession  but  believed  it  necessary  under  the  circumstances  in  order  to  preserve 
slavery.  The  classes  which  cameover  to  secession  were  chiefly  \Vhig3  of  the  bl ac n 
belts  and,  it  would  seem,  tne  propertied,  mercantile,  financial  element  of  the 
cities  and  towns.  These  cla3se3  had  been  c on3 ervative,  They  had  long  protested 
against  useless  agitation,  believing  that  t he  best  policy  wa3  one  of  conciliation 
and  avoidance  of  contest.  Those  who  persisted  in  their  opposition  to  secession 
to  the  last  were  chiefly  the  people  of  the  faming  districts  and  the  bacx  country, 
where  the  slave  population  bore  a relatively  smaller  proportion  to  the  whites. 
They  were  Democrats  of  the  Jackson  type  or  Whigs  of  +he  Clay  type.  They  had 
never  accepted  the  teachings  of  the  secessionists.  They  were  not  hostile  to 
slavery;  but  they  did  not  have  the  same  interest  in  its  preservation  wnich  tne 
planting  class  had.  Party  lines  largely  save  way  during  the  contests  for  control 
of  the  state  conventions;  but  in  two  states  at  least  Whigs  showed  themselves  more 
favora >le  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union  tnan  Democrats  of  tne  same  districts. 
The  decision  in  a few  localities  was  influenced by  considerat ions  peculiar  ■' o 
each.  These  general  statements  may  be  illustrated  by  a brief  analysis  of  the 
alignment  upon  the  secession  issue  in  each  of  the  more  populous  of  the  cotton 
3tate3. 

In  South  Carolina  tne  Unionists  of  1^51  were  with  some  diminution  of  numoer3 
the pn'ionists  of  1*60.  Tne  only  locality  inwnich  there  was  a pronounced  Union 
sentiment  was  tne  up-country  farming  district  aoout  Greenville,  3,  o»  rerry  was 
the  leader  there,  as  he  had  been  in  1^51.  Hopes  that  the  commercial  interest s 
Charleston  would  be  adverse  to  secession  proved  ill-icunded,  *ne  co- operat ion- 
ist3  of  1 c 51  aid  not  insist  upon  waiting  for  cooperation  in  1*60:  they  were  con- 
fident it  would  come. 

The  secessionists  of  Georgia  in  1^61  were  the  southern  a tgnt  s p arty  of  a * •'>,j 


254 


with  accretions.  About  trie  only  prominent  leader  who  had  favored  secession  in 
1^50  but  opposed  it  in  1*61  was  Herschel  V,  Johnson.  Robert  Toombs,  Howell  Cobb, 

E.  A,  Nisbet  were  the  moat  prominent  of  the  large  number  who  counselle 

quiescence  in  1*50  and  secession  a decade  later.  Georgia  was  not  divided  into 
sections  as  were  several  other  Southern  states.  The  only  large  comr'-ct  group  of 
counties  which  elected  Union  delegates  to  the'  3+  ate  Convention  lay  along  the 
Northern  border.  In  these  counties  the  white  population  greatly  outnumbered  the 
black.  They  had  long  returned  Democratic  majorities.  They  had  been  Unionist  in 
1*50.  It  is  significant  that  ever,,  county  which  had  a city  or  considerable  town 
elected  secession  delegates;  notwithstanding  the  white  popul  tion  preponderated 
in  most  of  them,  and  most  of  them  could  be  cl  iSSj.fied  as  Whig  counties.  *he  gen- 
eral tendency  cf  the  districts  in  which  the  whites  constituted  a majority  to  fav- 

or maintenance  of  the  Union  and  of  the  black  belts  to  go  for  secession  is  illus- 
trated by  the  accompanying  table.  Counties  having  a population  more  than  50  per 
cent  slave  are  classified  a3  black;  others,  white.  Counties  are  classified  as 
Whig  which  gave  Whig  majorities  at  a majority  of  tne  , residential  elections  oe- 
tween  1*44  and  1*60;  ethers,  Democratic.  Counties  are  classified  as  Union,  se- 
cession, or  divided  accordingly  as  their  delegations  in  tne  State  convention  voted 
upon  H.  V.  Johnson's  substitute  for  the  ordinance  of  secession,  which  was  tne 
test  quest  ion.  15 


Black  counties  

White  counties  ...... 

Whig  counties  ...... 

Democratic  counties  . . . 
Whig,  black  counties  . . . 
Democratic,  black  counties 
Whig,  white  counties  . . . 
Democratic,  white  counties 
Totals  , . 


oecess ion 

Union 

Divided 

Totals^ 

37 

13 

7 

57 

33 

39 

3 

75 

25 

23 

4 

52 

45 

29 

6 

*0 

15 

12 

4 

31 

22 

1 

3 

26 

1C 

11 

0 

21 

23 

2* 

3 

54 

70 

52 

10 

132 

15.  Journal  o f the  Convention  of  Georgia,  32. 

16,  If  the  counties  in  which  the  negroes  comprised  from  40#  to  5Q/o  of  tn 
total  peculation  be  classified  as  black,  the  number  of  3uch  courses  . ouj.1  be 
increased  y 22,  of  which  11  elected  secession,  and  9,  Union  delegates. 


. 

' 


255. 


Of  29  counties  which  elected  secession  delegatee  to  the  convention  of  Ala- 
bama, 2U  lay  in  a compact  group  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state.  Of  the  23 
Union  counties,  22  formed  a compact  group  in  the  northern  part  of  the  state. 

This  division  corre3r onded  roughly  with  the  division  between  the  black  belt  and 
the  white  counties;  only  a few  counties  in  thelnorihern  calf  of  the  state  had 
large  slave  popul  -=tions,  and  but  pew  more  in  the  southern  half  could  be  classed 
a3  white.  The  alignment  al3o  coincided  with  an  old  sectional  alignment  wcich  had 
characterised  the  state  politics  of  Alabama.*'  The  basis  of  this  long  standing 
sectionalism  lay  in  part  in  the  social  differences  between  the  planting  region 
and  the  farming  section,  in.  part  in  geography.  The  people  of  southern  Alabama 
found  an  cutlet  for  their  productions  through  Mobile.  The  people  of  a large  part 
of  northern  Alabama  were  cut  off  by  mountains  from  seeking  the  same  outlet;  the 
chief  outlets  for  their  productions  were  the  Tennessee  river,  and,  for  a few  yesr3 
before  l°fC,  the  Memphis  and  Charleston  and  other  railroads.  All  of  tnese  routes 
led  into  or  through  Tennessee.  The  people  ofjnorthern  Alabama  felt  that  it  would 
be  ruinous  to  their  section  of  the  state  to  3ecede  unless  Tennessee  should  also 
secede.  Threats  were  made  that,  in  case  Tennessee  should  not  secede,  nortn 
Alabama  would  separate  from  tne  remainder  of  the  state  and  a3k  for  union  with 
her.  The  Whigs  of  southern  Alabama,  where  they  were  in  the  maj  ority,  generally 
went  over  t ^ t he  secessionists.  Such  Whig  leaders  as  H.  V/.  Hilliard,  T,  H.  Watt  s, 
and  T.  J . Judge  now  took  their  3 tana  with  Yancey,  whom  they  had  nitherto  opposed. 

The  Democrats  of  ncttnern  Alabama,  where  they  were  in  a large  majority,  had  always 

19 

been  of  tne  Jackson  rather  than  the  Calnoun  wing  of  xhe  party,  Mobile  and  Mont- 
gomery, the  one  in  a white  county,  the  ether,  a black,  botn  went  for  secession, 

17,  Jack,  Sectionalism  in  Alabama. 

I5'.  Smith,  History  and  Debates  of  the  Convention  0 *'  Alabama , passim,  es- 
pecially remarks  of  Mr.  Clark,  of  Lawrence,  pp,  91-90.  New  York  Times.  Jan.  lft. 

J onrnal  of  the  Convention  of  oouth  Carolina.  233-3,  report  of  a,  p.  Calhoun,  Com- 
missioner xo  Alabama. 

19,  Cf.  Hodgson,  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy.  475. 


' 

. 


■ 


256 


The  accompanying  table,  with  items  defined  as  were  tno3e  of  a similar  table  for 
Georgia,  may  serve  to  illustrate  certain  tendencies  to  division  in  Alabama.  It 
doe3  not  illustrate  tne  sectional  division,  and  it  does  net  accurately  indicate 
the  position  of  the  Whig  party. 


•Secession 

Union 

Totals 

Black  counties  , 

15 

1 

16 

White  counties 

14 

22 

36 

Whig  counties  ....... 

15 

3 

1ft 

Democratic  counties  .... 

14 

20 

34 

Whig,  black  counties  . . . . 

9 

0 

9 

Democratic,  black  c nun  ties  . 

6 

1 

7 

Whig,  white  counties  . . . . 

•6 

3 

9 

Democratic,  white  counties  , 

19 

27 

Totals  

29 

23 

52 

The  opposition  to  secession  in  Mississippi  centered  chiefly  in  a few  Demo- 
cratic counties  situated  in  the  extreme  northern  part  of  the  state  and  having 
relatively  small  slave  populations,  and  in  several  Whig  counties  with  large  black 
populations  and  lying  along  the  Mississippi  river.  The  counties  in  whicn  Vicks- 
burg, Natchez,  and  Jackson,  tne  only  considerable  towns  of  the  state,  'neve  locate^ 
all  gave  majorities  against  immediate  and  separate  secession.  It  would  seem,  that, 
except  in  a few  northern  counties  mentioned,  the  opponents  of  secession  were 
chiefly  Whigs.  In  tne  convention  the  opponents  of  immediate  and  separate  action 
were  led  by  Yerger,  a 'Whig.  The  continued  Whig  opposition  to-  secession  counter- 
balanced in  this  state  tne  tendency  to  division  between  districts  having  large  and 
districts  having  small  slave  populations.  This  feet  is  illustrated  in  tne  follow- 


Secession 

Union 

Divided 

Total  3 

Black  counties  ...... 

16  . • 

6 

2 

24 

White  counties  ...... 

2ft 

6 

2 

36 

Whig  counties 

7 

7 

2 

16 

Democratic  counties  . . . . 

37 

5 

2 

44 

Whig,  black  counties  . . . 

5 

5 

2 

12 

Democratic,  bl  ck  counties 

11 

1 

0 

12 

Whig,  white  counties  . . . 

2 

2 

0 

4 

Democratic,  whine  c unties 

26 

4 

2 

32 

Totals , 

44 

12 

4 

60 

The  contest  in  Louisiana  presented  no  remarkable  feati  res. 


Cld  -arty  divi- 


v 1 • 


lions  were  swept  away.  In  general  the  parishes  with  the^Largeet  slave  populations 
went  for  secession;  tnere  were  exceptions.  There  were  few  parishes  which  could 
not  be  considered  as  belonging  to  th^blac*  belt.  There  were  no  rrarked  sectional 

divisions  ....  he  st  f " ''  c ri9he3  the  narth  ce"tral  ?art 

of  the  state  and  another  of  Whig  parishes  near  the  Mississippi  in  the  southeast 

corner  of  tne  state  elected  delegates  opposed  to  immediate  secession.  Hew  Orleans 
which  had  always  been  considered  a Union  stronghold  because  of  its  large  foreign 
and  northern  population  and  its  commerce  with  states  of  the  upper  Mississippi 
valley,  elected  20  secession  end  ¥ Union  delegates.  The  city  had  g 
it y for  the  Bell  electors  in  November;  the  population  was  overwhelmingly  white. 

The  result  in  New  Orleans  may  be  attributed  in  part  to  the  prevalent  excitement 
and  the  failure  of  the  conservative  Creole  population  to  poll  their  full  strengtn 
in  the  convention  election.  * Several  of  the  secession  conventions,  following  the 
example  of  the  Second  Continental  Congress  adopted  declarations  of  . -e 
secession.  These  documents  were  drawn  up,  no  doubt,  with  less  regard  to  hl3tor~ 
ical  accuracy  than  to  the  effect  they. right  nave  upon  public'  opinion  at  tome,  m 
the  border  states,  in  the  North  and  even  in  Europe.  They  all  rest  the  cause  of 
the  South  primarily  upon,  the  necessity  of  protecting  slavery  against  Northern 

assaults . 

The  3outh  Caroline  convention  published  two  statement,  of  causes.  One. 

•The  Address  of  the  People  of  South  Carolina  - - to  the  People  of  the  Stavehold- 

tog  State.  - - r/'S°  ‘ "ittee 

^airman,21  the  other,  "A  Beclaration  of  the  Immediate  Cause,  which  Induce  and 
u.tify  the  Secession  of  South  Carolina  from  the  Federal  Union. was  brought  in 

pO 

,J  a committee  of  which  C.  3.  t'emminger  was  chairman.'  In  all  probability 

PC  Journal  of  jjj*  CowentiffiP  jL  Hit  &S&Z.  «L  f rV^,, 

d iq62.  i --'7-7-;  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  12  lb,  

dev  iewlhft  \>60. 

21.  J sum*!,  21.  . , , 

22.  J cur  ml  . 461-^6;  McPherson,  oo^cit.,  t * 

23.  Journal,  31, 


24 

the  chainren  of  the  respective  committees  wrote  the  reports.-''  Rhett  rs  cor  mitt  e 
represented  secessionists  of  long  standing  of  the  more  extreme  sort.  They  were 
of  the  faction  which  had  advocated  separate  action  in  1* 51-1* 52.  Memminger  rep- 
resented the  more  moderate  element  which  had  constituted  the  cooperationist  party 
in  1951-52.  The  Rhett  following  3eerc  to  have  wished  to  play  up  the  establish- 
ment of  a free  trade  republic  for  the  purpose,  of  enlisting  European  support. 

The  group  of  which  Memminger  was  a member  considered  it  of  f irst  import  -nee  c u- 
nite  the  South.  It  would  seem  that  the\two  committees  were  appointed  in  order  that 
both  factions  might  express  their  views.  The  convention  showed  a disposition  to 

divide  along  these  lines  on  several  questions. 

Of  the  two  documents  the  "Address"  was  much  the  abler  and  more  worthy  of  a 

oreot  cause.  The  entire  substance  of  it  may  be  found  in  Calhoun '3  lasu  s - t 
~ ~ 26 
speech  in  the  Senate,  March  4,  1*50,  the  address  of  the  Nashville  Convention, 

and  Rhett  *s  speech  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  which  he  avowed  himself  a dis- 
unic-nist.27  It  justified  secession  by  "the  accumulated  wrongs  of  half  a century."! 
The  great  wrong  was  represented  to  be  the  overthrow  of  the  Constitution  and  tne 
transformation  of  th^federal  republic  .into  a consolidated  democracy,  in  which  a 
sectional  majority  in  the  North  could  rule  over  the  minority  in  tne  ^ruth  and 
carry  out  its  measures  of  "ambition,  encroachment  and  aggrandisement . " a parallel 
was  drawn  between  the  relation  of  tne  Thirteen  Colonies  to  Great  Britain  and  the 
relation  of  the  South  to  the  North.  The  South  had  been  taxed  f or  Northern  bene- 
fit; her  cities  made  "mere  suburbs  of  Northern  cities";  her  foreign  trade  "al- 
most annihilated."  The  much  employed  economic  interpretation  of  the  anti-slavery 
movement  was  given:  hostility  to  slavery  had  been  made  the  criterion  of  parties 
in  the  North  in  order  t consolidate  the  power  of  the  section  to  rule  the  South  in 

24.  Ca-ers,  Life  and  Times  of.  '’emrringer,  2*9-95. 

25.  'Forks.  IV,  542- 74. 

26.  National  Intelligencer.  July  13,  1*50. 

27.  ConV.  Globe,  3.2,  Cong. , 1 Seas Appx,  42-4*.  -see’  00'7e 


the  interest  of  the  fo  finer. 


The  address  further  portrayed  the  dangers  to  which 


slavery  was  exposed  in  a consolidated  republic,  argued  the  constitutional  rignt, 

eracy. 

to  the  slavehold instates  to  W 

1'emminger  .'s  "Declaration  of  Immediate  Causes"  was  a brief  constitu- 
tional argument.  It  stated  the  compact  theory  of  the  Constitution,  and  contended 
that  the  Northern  states  had  violated  the  letter  of  the  compact  by  their  Personal 
Liberty  laws,  and  the  spirit  of  it  by  the  anti-slavery  agitation  and  the  election 
to  the  presidency  of  the  candidate  of  a sectional  party.  The  declaration  was 
attacked  by  ^ Gregg,  L.  W.  Spratt,  and  e ground  of  incoi 

ness.  It  set  forth  only  somejof  the  causes;  it  omitted  the  tariff  altogether, 
laid  emphasis  on  "an  incomparably  unimportant  point."  The  reply  was"  made  that 
Southern  congressmen  voted  for  the  existing  tariff;  the  Whig  party  had  always  fa- 
vored the  tariff;  the  tariff  argument  would  not  appeal  to  Missouri,  Ken+w^ , 
Louisiana;  the  issue  should  not  be  raised  then.  tf«mmi»ger  thought  it  expedient 

to  put  their  action  before  all  the  world  upon  thesimple  matter  of  wrongs  on  the 

28- 

question  of  slavery,  and  that  question  turned  upon  the  fugitive  slave  law. 

The  declarations  of  causes  adopted  by  the  Georgia,  Mississippi,  ana  Texas 

conventions  bore  greater  resemblance  to  Memminger 's  "Declaration  o'  Causes"  than 

29 

to  Rhett's  "Address".  Robert  Toombs  wrote  the  Georgia  statement  of  causes.  He 

told  how  the  North  had  out  grown  the  South  in  material  jra^,  - j,  cin- 

the  disparity  to  bounties,  tariffs,  subsidies,  and  other  protective  legislation. 

He  charged  that  the  anti-slavery  agitation  had  been  fomented  in  the  East  for  the 

purposes  of  winning  over  the  West  from  her  Southern  alliance  and  uniting  East  ana 

West  to  wield  the  power  of  the  governments  promote  sectional  interests . me 

chief  theme  of  the  document,  however,  was  the  rise  of  tne  anti-slurry  -ae 

2*.  Debate  in  National  Dec.  27,  29.  McPherson,  0£.  cit. , 

14  ,f  +.h«  Public  and  Secret  Proceedings,  of.  the  C dentin,  Geor 

, 0fthe  committee  to  report  an  or- 

ftan^Tf  3 . - rt  i.  ■ It  - *££&  104. 


260 


history  of  aggression  upon  aggression,  and  their  culmination  in  the  victory  of 
a sectional  party,  which  left  no  protection  for  the  South  but  the  Constitution, 

Wo  confidence  was  placed  in  Republican  promises  to  respect  the  const  at  ut  ion: 

"They  (tne  Southern  people ) know  the  value  Af  parchment  rignt3,  An  treacherous 
hand3,  and  therefore,  they  refuse  to  commit  tneir  own  to  the  rulers  whom  the 
Worth  offer  us,"  The  Mississippi  declaration  is  fairly  epitomised  in  two  sen- 
tences:; "Our  position  is  thoroughly  identified  with  the  institution  of  slavery- 
the  greatest  material  interest  in  the  world,  - - - Utter  subjugation  awaits  vs 
in  the  Union,  if  we  should  consent  longer  to  remain  in  it,"  The  Texas  declar- 
ation added  little  to  this  except  the  assertion  that  the  Federal  government  had 

i 31 

'.ailed  to  protect  life  andrroperty  u^on  the  frontier. 

President.  Davi3  devoted  a large  part  of  hig  first  me3sage  t^  the  Confeder- 
ate Congress,  April  2$,  1^61,  to  a discussion  of  the|cau3es  of  secession.  The 
Constitution  of  the  Unitted  States  provided  for  a f edera".  government,  he  said;  but 
that  had  not  prevented  the  rise  of  a political  school  which  "persistently  claimed 
that  the  Government  thus  formed  wa3  not  a compact  between  States,  but  wa3  in  ef- 
fect a National  Go  vernment,  set  up  and  over  the  States,"  This  doctrine  gained 
the  more  ready  assent  in  the  Worth  because  as  that  section  gained  preponderance 
in  Congress  self-interest  tempted  her  representatives  to  use  their  power  to  pro- 
mote Northern  interests  atithe  expense  of  the  South,  "Long  and  angry  controversy 
grew  out  of  these  attempts,  often  successful,  to  be-;  f Li  ■ section  of  the  coun- 
try at  the  expense  of  the  other,"  In  addition  there  had  existed  for  nearly  half 
a century  another  subject  of  discord,  slavery,  which  involved  interests  of  such 
transcendent  importance  .that  the  oernsanence  of  the  Union  had  long  been  endangered, 
'Tit h slavery  as  the  issue  there  had  developed  in  the  Worth  a sectional  party, 

30,  J o u r nn  1 of  t-  he  0 v ~ t e C p n v e n 1 1 i ~ n . etc,,  c'6-CfCi, 

31,  T ex a3  Library  and  Historical  Commission,  J ^f  the  Secession  Con- 

vention of  Texas.  lr<6]  , pp,  6l  ff. 


2*1 


which  had  finally  gained  control  of  the  government.  Meanwhile  great  interests 
had  developed  in  the  South.  "With  interests  of  such  overwhelming  magnitude  im- 
perilled," the  people  of  the  South  could  not  consent  to  live  under  a sectional 

government.'  " 

Some  people  in  the  Worth  believed  that  President  Davis  had  emphasised  the 
unequal  operation  of  the  government  upon  the  economic  interests  of  the  sections 
and  minimised  the  slavery  question  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  opinion  abroad. 
They  were  disposed  to  take  as  a more  accurate  interpretation  of  the  causes  of 
secession,  a speech  of  Vice-President  Stephens  in  which  he  spoke  of  slavery  >3 
the  corner  stone  of  the  new  republic,  '"he  speech  accorded  well  with  Stephens 
earlier  utterances.  He,  it  should  be  3sid,  was  one  of  the  more  c "nse rvat ive  lead- 
ers of  the  South;  he  had  never  shown  sympathy  with  the  unconditional  d is unionists; 
he  had  taken  little  interest  in  those  progressive  Southern  movements  which  have 
been  described;  he  opposed  secession  t « the  last.  Moreover,  his  "Corner  Stone" 
speecn  should  be  read  in  its  entirety.  He  did  not  fail  to  pay  his  respects  to  a 
protective  tariff  and  appropriations  for  internal  improvement . "This  old  thorn 
of  the  tariff,  which  occasioned  the  cause  of  much  irritation  in  the  old  body 
politic,  is  removed  forever  from  the  new.  - - - - The  true  principle  is  to  sub- 
ject commerce  cf  every  locality  to  whatever  burdens  may  be  necessary  to  facili- 
tate it."  The  people  of  the  North,  he  said,  wanted  to  preserve  the  Union  because 
"they  are  disinclined  to  give  up  the  benefits  they  -derive  from  slave  labor."  Ac- 
cording to  the  reporter,  "Mr.  Stephens  reviewed  at  some  length  the  extravagance 

and  profligacy  of  appropriations  by  the  Congress  of  the  United.  States  for  sever- 

33 

al  years  past,  - - - ." 

Unofficial  Southern  essays  at  interpreting  events  after  their  occurrence  also 
fail  to  shew  general  agreement,  Cf  them,  too,  it  must  be  ss.id  that  they  were  not 
made  to  facilitate  the  task  of  the  student.  Tne  Charleston  T^~ourp,  speaking  of 

32.  Annual  Cyclopedia.  I,  614  ff. 

33,  Moore,  .v. v ell  ion  Rec  o rd . I,  Do”.  p.  44-4^, 


' . 

. 


262 


the  Confederate  Constitution,  said:  "The  system  of  partial  legislation  in  the 

imposition  of  taxes  which  has  been  the  prime  cause  of  all  the  corruption  and  sec- 
tionalism vfoich  have  finally  overthrown  the  Union  of  the  United  States  is  repu- 

34 

diated  by  this  constitution."  According  to  J.  D.  3.  BeBow:  "At  bottom,  the 

quarrel  between  the  North  and  South  is,  "Shall  the  North  support  itself,  or,  by 

means  of  government  action  and  machinery,  be  supported  by  the  South?  It  is  the 

35 

old  quarrel  of  nullification  continued  under  a new  name."  "A  report  submitted 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Merchants’  and  Planters*  convention,  at  Macon, 
Georgia,  October  1861,  expressed  the  thought  that  the  "chief  causes  of  our  separa- 
tion must  be  found  in  questions  affecting  our  selling  the  products  of  the  soil 
and  the  purchase  of  our  supplies  from  others.  Governor  Joseph  P.  Brown,  of 
Georgia,  who  was  already  defending  state  rights  against  the  encroachments  of  the 
Confederate  government,  in  his  annual  message,  November,  1861,  followed  a chain 
of  reason  quite  like  that  of  President  Davis  in  the  message  already  referred 
to.  The  people  of  the  North  had  become  consolidationists  because  they  had  found 
that  tariff  laws,  navigation  acts,  fishing  laws,  etc.  had  fostered  their  inter- 
ests. "By  the  instrumentality  of  these  laws,  the  government  of  the  United  States 
has  poured  the  wealth  of  the  productive  South  into  the  lap  of  the  bleak  and 
sterile  North,  ..."  The  slavery  question  had  been  used  to  excite  the  masses. 

The  Southern  people  had  tried  to  maintain  state  rights.  In  the  same  message,  'with 

a different  bearing  (the  capacity  of  the  South  for  self-government),  he  praised 

37 

slavery  as  conducive  to  the  perpetuity  of  republican  institutions. 

Others  put  the  emphasis  on  other  causes.  L.  7/.  Spratt,the  indefatigibie 
advocate  of  reopening  the  African  slave  trade, believed  that  the  South  had 
seceded,  or  should  have  seceded,  for  the  purpose  of  perpetuating  slave  in- 
stitutions; by  the  provision  of  the  Confederate  Constitution  prohibiting  the 

34.  Mar.  15,  1861. 

35.  DeBow*  s Review.  XXXI,  2.  See  articles  in  ibid..  XXXI,  13-17;  69-77. 

36.  Ibid..  XXXI,  333. 

37.  Candler,  Confederate  Records  of  the  State  of  Georgia.  II.  77-125. 


* • 


■ 


, 


* 


' s 


.... 


**  ■ ' “ • * • 


2-3 


foreign  slave  trade,  the  mission  of  the  South  had  been  betrayed.'  The  Reverend. 
Dr.  J.  H.  Thorr.well,  sometime  editor  ofthe  Southern  Quart erl;/  Review  sought  to 
put  the  Southern  caua^upon  the  highest  possible  plane.  The  Southern  states  nad 
seceded  because/r-f  "The  profound  conviction  th- t the  Const itution,  in  its  relatio® 
to  slavery,  nas  been  virtually  repealed,"  He  repudiated  the  suggestion  "unat  all 
this  ferment  is  nothing  but  the  result  of  a mercernary  spirit  on  the  part  of  the 
cot  ton- growing  states,  fed  by  Utopian  dreams  of  aggrandisement  and  wealth,  to  be 
realised  under  the  auspices  of  free  trade,  in  a sercarate  confederacy  of  their 
own."  Considerations  of  such  character  had  been  advanced  in  the  South  not  to  jus- 
tify secession,  but  to  reconcil^her  to  the  necessity  of  it.  Neither  had  seces- 
sion been  desired  to  make  possible  the  reopening  of  the  African  slave  trade',  t 
agitation  of  that  question  had  only  been  tne  natural  reaction  of  irresponsible 

„ • •;  L- 

oouthern  hot-heads  to  Garrisonian  abolition  in  the  North. 

Numerous  incidents  and  miscellaneous  comments  illustrate  how  firmly  grounded 

were  the  opinions  relative  to  the  economic  effects  of  disunion,  which  had  been 

inculcated  by  years  of  disunionist  propaganda.  Mayor  McBeth,  of  Charleston, 

notified  agents  of  Northern  steamsnip  lines  that  he  would  not  permit  the  landing 

of  steerage  passingers  unless  it  was  guaranteed  that  they  would  not  become  public 

cnarges.  He  expected  that  paupers,  fearing  destitution  in  the  North  as  a result 

4C 

of  the  los3  of  Southern  trade,  would  flock  South.  ^li  !.  Shorter,  of  Alabama, 

wrote  t a friend  in  Missouri  saying  that  the  people  c-f  the  South  greatly  s..  -- 

pathiced  with  the  conservatives  of  the  North  and  would  gladly  preserve  them,  if 

41 

possible,  from  the  general  bankruptcy  which  awaited  New  York  City,  It  seems  to 

3 &.  Letter  to  Hon,  John  Perkir.3,  of  Louisiana,  in  Moore,  Rebellion  Record. 

II,  3 57-65. 

39 . The  St  a he  :f  the  C ^-un+ry : an  article  republished  fro^  he  mouther ri  J r os- 
byte  rian  Review  "(pamphlet.  New  York,  l&6l)  pp.  6 ff. 

40.  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  15,  I860.  Also  ubid. . Nov,  20,  quoting  Nie  New 

Orleans  Courier  and  Bee  on  effec  f upon  North  and  South;  ibid. . Dec. 

11,  on  a threatened  exodus  to  the  South. 

41.  Quoted  in  New  York  Times . Jan.  12,  1861, 


264. 

have  been  expected  that  northern  shipping  and  northern  capital  would  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  South;  ana  from  time  to  time  during  the  winter  of  i960- 6l,  reports 

49 

came  of  such  transfers  which  had  been  or  were  -'bout  to  be  made.*"  Evidence  will 
be  given  later  of  the  desposition  shown  at  an  early  date'  to  taxe  advantage  of  se- 
cession to  promote  schemes  for  direct  trade.  It  was  said  to  be  desirable  to  get 
"started  right".  As  late  as  July  I96l,  DeBov;  wrote:  "That  magic  word,  .Secession, 
has  transferred  thousands  of  millions  of  wealth  from  the  North  to  the  South.  The 
North  is  bankrupt.  Her  people  must  migrate  to  the  Vest  or  starve.  . , They  do 
not  produce  their  own  food  and  clothing  and  will  have  oxhing  va.erewith  to  pur- 
chase it.  . , Their  local  wealth,  derived  from  houses,  factories,  cities,  rail- 

i 43 

roads,  etc.,  ceased  to  exist  theinstant  secession  became  an  accomplished  fact." 

in  the  border  slave  states,  where  tne  maj  ority  did  not  believe  tnat  the 
election  of  Lincoln  j ustified  precipitate  abandonment  of  the  Union,  frequent  ex- 
pression was  given  by  opponents  of  secession  of  a belief  xnat  fears  for  slavery 
ute  the  chief  cause  for  the  action  of  the  cotton  ' 

largely  a pretext.  A notable  example  is  found  in  Governor  Letcher's  message  to 
the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  January  7,  lS6l.  The  cotton  states  in  seced- 
ing without  attempting  to  secure  cooperation  of  all  the  slave  nolo,  ing  states  '.'ere 
consulting  their  own  interesxs.  Why  should  not  Virginia  consider  her  own?  He 
criticised  the  tendency  of  Virginians  to  ignore  the  j ust  corcplainxs  of  their  own 
3tate  against  the  North  and  unite  in  the  complaints  of  the  coxton  states.  "The 
complaints  of  tnose  states  are  ratner  against  thejf inancial  end  commercial  policy 

of  the  Federal  Government,  than  any  action  or  want  of  action  on  the  subject  of 

l .,44  -j- 

si  .very . " 

42.  Quoted  in  New  York  1 ime ~ . Feb.  25,  1961;  New  Yorx  Herald.  Nov.  19,  Dec. 
20,  1941;  G,  B.  Lamar  to  Howell  Cobb,  Mar,  25,  1941,  Toomb3 . Stephens . C 0 b ■:  Cor- 
respondence. 

43.  DeBow's  Reviev/.  XXXI,  5.  Many  others  wrote  and  spoke  in  a similar  strain 
for  example,  Vice-President  Stephens,  speech  at  Augusta,  July  11,  1941,  in  Moore, 
Hebe.]. lion  Record.  II,  274  ff.;  Secretary  of  State  Toombs,  Instructions  to  Yancey, 
Ro3t,  and  T'ann,  Commissioners  to  Great  Britain,  Fi-ance,  etc.,  ,rar.  l4,  l&4l,  in 
Richardson,  Messages  and  Parers  of  the  Confederacy,  XI,  7. 

' Documents  , ' T 3 1 , 


265 


John  A.  Gilmer,  of  north  Carolina,  said  secession  had  been  an  ODject  in 
South  Carolina  for  thirty  or  forty  years.  The  secessionists  had  desired  Lin- 
coln's election.  They  did  not  want  guarantees  for  slavery.'"0  Governor  Hicks, 
of  Maryland,  took  a similar  view.46  The  national  Intelligencer  put  a desire  to 
reopen  the  slave  trade  as  the  foremost  cause  of  secession.  John  P.  Kennedy,  of 
Maryland,  a former  secretary  of  the  navy,  told  the  history  of  disunion  sentiment 
in  South  Carolina.  As  causes  of  secession  he  mentioned  a disposition  of  Southern 
leaders  to  undervalue  the  strength  and  beneficence  of  the  Union;  the  belief  that 
the  planting  states  paid  all  the  taxes;  visions  of  a great  Southern  confederacy, 
including  Cuba,  San  Domingo,  Mexico,  and  perhaps  Central  America,  with  free  trade 
and  powerful  alliances,  and  peopled  by  "swarms  of  reinforcements  from  the  shores 
of  Afrioa."  He  did  not  overlook  the  fact,  however,  that  the  slavery  quarrel  had 
become  "venomous."48  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  said  the  disunion  movement  was 
led  by  men  of  distinguished  ability  with  whom  the  expediency  of  secession  was  a 
foregone  conclusion  and  who  only  waited  a plausible  pretext  - "men  whose  imagin- 
ations have  been  taken  possession  of,  and  their  judgments  led  captive,  oy  the 
dazzling,  but,  as  I think  delusive,  vision  of  a new,  great,  and  glorious  repub- 
lican empire,  stretching  far  into  the  South."49  Andrew  Johnson  and  W.  G.  Brown- 
low,  of  Tennessee,  attributed  secession  to  the  machinations  of  disappointed  pol- 
iticians, and  emphasized  the  long  standing  hatred  of  the  Union  in  South  Carolina. 

A Kentuckian  in  South  Carolina.  Disunion,  and  a Mississippi 

45.  Cong.  Globe.  36  Cong.  2 Sess. , 580  f f • 

46.  Annual  Cyclopedia.  I,  443. 

47.  Editorials  of  Nov.  29,  Dec.  29,  1860. 

48.  The  Border  States.  Their  Power  and  Duty  in  the  Present  Disordered 

Condition  of  the  Country.  (Pamphlet,  46  pp. ) _ 

49^  Letter  to  A.  Burnell,  Dec.  6,  1860,  in  Hew  York  Herald,  Dec.  12. 

50.  Speech  of  Andrew  Johnson  in  the  Senate,  Feb.  5,  1861,  in  Cong,  j-pjqp, 
36  Cong.,  2 Sess.,  744  ff . ; v7.  G.  Brownlow,  Sketches,  of  the  Hise,  Progress  and 
Decline  of  Secession;  etc.,  114  and  -passim. 


6 


266. 


Valley  Confederacy,  seemed  to  be  well  acquainted  with  South  Carolina  history  for 
thirty  years;  and  ascribed  to  her  the  leadership  in  the  disunion  movement.  " hiv- 
ing made  up  her  mind  to  disunion  for  the  sake  of  re-opening  tne  African  Slave 
Trade,  or  for  the  sake  of  3ome  other  supposed  local  advantage  of  her  own,  or  for 
the  sake  of  vengeance  in  nar  gratification  of  her  hate  to  tne  Union  and  the  na- 
tion, her  policy  was  to  precipitate  as  many  of  the  other  cotton  3tates  as  sne 
could  into  disunion  also,"  Among  other  oojects  ne  mentioned  the  "cnerisned 
policy  of  free  trade,  direct  taxation,  and  no  tariff",  and  disappointed  polici- 

cal  aspirations.  Union  men  in  Missouri  tried  to  account  for  the  secession  move- 

51 

ment  by  other  causes  than  fears  for  slavery  in  a Union  with  the  tree  states. 
General  John  B.  Nenderson,  Democrat  of  tne  Benton  wing,  said:  "They  never  left 
this  confederacy  ...  on  account  of  any  tear  whatever  as  to  tneir  x ignts  in 
negro  property.  It  is  a false  idea  of  comme raial  greatness.  They  have,  since 
1*32,  inculcated  a doctrine  that  a Tariff  upon  imports  is  a mere  burden  upon  ex- 
ports; that  their  cities  have  languished  under  the  revenue  laws  of  the  Government 

4 s 

that  their  fields  have  become  barren  under  tne  oppressions  and  actions  of  an  un- 
just government.  The  merchant  of  Charleston  to-aay,  candialy  and  sincerely  Re- 
lieves, in  case  his  government  can  be  established,  that  South  Caroli.  oe 

separated  from  the  Federal  Union,  Charleston  in  the  course  of  ten  years  will  be- 
come a New  York.  The  merchants  of  Savannah  have  the  3ame  opinion,  tne  merchants 
of  Mobile  and  the  merchants  of  New  Orleans  have  the  same  opinion,  and  unfortun- 
ately I must  say  that  this  doctrine^ f the  day  is  entertained  by  some  of  tne  mer- 
chants of  the  West."  Another  cause  for  secession  was  the  desire  to  filibuster 

for  Cuba  and  Central  America.  But  the  excuse  wmcn  had  been  given  for  secession 

. ,52 

was  tne  one  which  found  sympathy  among  the  people  o>  issouii, 

51,  P?s  4,6. 

52.  J ournal  and  F ro c eed ing s of  tne  is  x o r ? v ^ 1 - ± > - ■ 1 ■*  ■■ 

ingg . p.  hT.  See  also  majority  report  ofthe  committee  on  tne  Commissioner  roir. 

Georgia,  ibid. , J -■  urnal . p.  50  J"f. 


2,67 

In  the  North  also  -there  was  from  the  first  a large  class  who  orofessed  to 
believe  that  the  cotton  states  had  seceded  chiefly  for  other  reasons  than  fears 
for  slavery  and  a belief  that  constitutional  rights  had  been  disregarded.  This 
class  reposed  no  confidence  in  compromises  and  concessions  as  Union  savers  or 
restorers;  no  doubt  most  of  them  would  have  been  opposed  to  compromise  or 
concession  upon  the  slavery  issue  in  any  case.  They  advanced  various  explana- 
tions of  secession.  William  H.  Seward,  in  a speech  of  which  the  Union  savers 
had  expected  much,  credited  disunion  chiefly  to  the  defeat  of  Southern  politi- 
cians and  their  loss  of  power  to  govern  the  country.  But  he  did  not  overlook 
the  influence  of  the  unconditional  disunionists : "More  than  thirty  years  he  re 

has  existed  ? e onsiderab?  -v  - though  not  heretofore  a formidable  - mass  of 
dtisens  in  certain  states  situated  nuar  or  around  the  delta  of  the  Mississippi, 
who  believe  that  the  Union  is  les3  conducive  to  the  welfare  and  greatness  of 
those  states  than  a smaller  confederacy,  embracing  only  slave  states,  would 
be . " 53  Senators  Wade,  of  Ohio,  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  Cameron,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Chandler,  of  Michigan,  and  Trumbull,  of  Illinois,  inclined  to  take  the 

view  that  secession  was  the  outcome  of  a "rule  or  ruin"  policy  on  the  P^it  f 

Southern  leaders. 54  Senator  Simmons, of  *hode  Island,  engaged  in  a colloquy 
with  Thomas  L.  Clingman  relative  to  the  effect  of  secession  upon  revenues 
North  and  South  and  upon  the  imports  of  the  respective  sections.  "I  know,"  he 

said,  "d art  of  this  scheme  has  been  to  make  Charleston  the  great  c o.  o- ciaJ 

emporium  of  the  South,"55  A select  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
reported  that  "the  difficulties  growing  out  of  the  existence  of  slavery,  he  waver 
viewed  by  the  common  poeple,  are  so  far  as  the  leaders  are  concerned,  but  a mere 
pretense,  their  real  object  being  the  overthrow  oft  he  Government,  that  a 

53.  Cong,  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2 Sess.,  343,  speech  in  the  Senate,  Jar.l 

54.  Ibid,,  102;  10**  ft,;  494;  1370;  13*0  (in  order), 

55.  Ibid,,  1476. 


. 


. 


' 


268 


56 

Southern  Confederacy,  of  a military  character  may  arise.  . . ." 

The  New  York  Times  consistently  sought  other  motives  for  secession.  An 
editorial  of  January  4,  1861  gave  the  desire  to  reopen  the  African  slave  trade 
a prominent  place  among  the  motives  for  secession.  A week  later  "the  expectations 
of  great  advantages'*  tfhich  seaboard  cities  were  to  derive  from  a free  trade  pol- 
icy, were  canvassed.57  Another  editorial  of  the  same  issue  considered  the  long 
taught  belief  in  the  South  that  "they  supported  the  Union— that  they  contributed 
far  more  than  the  Northern  States  to  the  support  of  the  Government— that  the 
industry  of  the  North  was  entirely  dependent  upon  their  staples  and  that,  if 
these  should  be  withdrawn,  universal  bankruptcy,  beggary  and  ruin  would  instantly 

overtake  the  people  of  the  North."  Another  editorial  reviewed  a disunion  per  se 

58  a . 

article  by  Major  W.  H.  Chase,  of  Florida,  in  DeBow's  Review;  another  was  headed, 

59 

"Proportion  of  the  Burdens  of  Government  Borne  by  the  South;"  another  dealt 
with  schemes  to  form  "a  grand  Slave  Bnpire  to  embrace  the  islands  of  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico  and  the  territories  facing  it."5<^  A number  of  articles  of  this  char- 
acter from  the  Times  were  published  as  a pamphlet  under  the  caption,  Tpe.  Bffec.t 
of  Secession  upon  the  Commercial  Relations  between  the  North  and  the  South* 
apparently  intended  to  influence  opinion  in  the  border  states.  It  asserted  that 

"the  leading  motive  or  inducement  to  secession  has  undoubtedly  been  the  antici- 

61 

pated  material  advantages  that  were  to  result." 

Another  able  panphlet,  The  Five  Cotton  States  and  New  York,  etc. , took  up 
and  refuted,  in  order,  the  Southern  views  that  (1)  "the  commercial  policy  of 
the  United  States  is  injurious  to  Southern  interests;"  (2)  "the  present 
course  of  business  in  the  United  States  is  extremely  unfavorable, 

56.  Cong.  Globe.  36  Cong.,  2 Sess.,  1294. 

57 . J an.  12 . 

58.  Jan.  15,  "The  Ideas  on  Which  Secession  is  Based." 

59.  Jan.  17. 

60.  Feb.  5. 

61.  P.  3.  Daniel  Lord  was  the  author. 


, . 


. 


. 


• ■ • 

- 


i ■ 


u 


. 


. 

• ; ' . 


269 


if  net  unjust, to  the  South,  especially,  the  five  cotton  states 

(3)  cotton  is  king.  " Another  pamphleteer,  Samuel  Powell,  in  Not  eg  on 

* 3 o ’jt  he r n vVe alt  h a nd  N o rt  he r n 2r  of  it s * , Kettell,  t nought  Kettell 's  tnesis, 

namely,  thatfthe  South  had  sup  lied  the  capital  which  had  accumulated  at  the 

North,  was  the  keynote  of  secession.  He  refuted  Kettell  *3  statements  seriat im. 

Even  the  New  York  Herald,  f o rjr/hic  h no  concessions  or  guarantees  to  slavery 

were  too  great,  occasionally  ascribed  to  sece33ionists  other  motives  (similar 

to  those  already  mentioned)  than  a de3ire  to  force  concessions  from  the  North, 

Ah 

or  to  protect  the  institution  of  slavery. 

It  is  believed  that  such  expressions  as  those  quoted  above  were  represen- 
tative of  the  professed  opinions  of  a considerable  clas3  in  tne  Northern  ana 
border  states,  and  that  these  opinions  had  some  oasis  in  fact,  ihe  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  North  and  of  the  Unionists  in  the  border  states,  however, 

3eem,  clearly,  to  have  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  cotton  states  had  seceded 
chiefly  because  of  a justifiable  or  mistaken  belief  that  slavery  was  endangered 
and  that  c onstitut ional  rights  had  been  violated  in  the  Union.  In  the  opin  ion 
of  many,  perhaps  most  of  this  class,  at  least  before  the  organization  of  the 
Provisional  Confederate  Government,  the  Southern  states,  .vith  the  exception  of 
South  Carolina,  could  be  saved  to  the  Union  by  concessions  and  guarantees 
relative  to  slavery.  After  the  organization  of  the  Confederacy  the  primary 
object  of  the  compromises  was  to  save  the  border  states. 

62.  Stephen  Colwell,  The.  Two.  Cotton  States  and  New  York,  or. 

the  Social  and  Ec  onom  ic  Asrects  of  tne  Souther  a p ol  it  ic  aa.  ^r.i3  is_,  J an,  - • ' 

64  pp. 

63.  For  example,  Nov.  19,  Financial  and  Commercial;  Dec.  R, 

Feb,  19,  1R61,  editorials. 


<■  < t 1 < 


, 


- 


. - 

, 

. 

. 

' 


chapter  X 


Evidences  of  Economic  "ogives  for  Southern  Sectl cnalism.  in  tie  To rmulatlcn 
of  tlio  Early  Economic  Polici es  of  the  Confederacy  and 
in  the  Decis:  on  of  the  Border  Slave 
3 o at  e 3 

A.  Early  Economic  Policies  of  the  Confederacy 
As  soon  as  secession  was  assured  in  the  cotton  states,  indications  were 
given  of  an  intention  to  tahe  advantage  of  political  separation  from  the  North 
to  promote  industrial  and  commercial  independence . In  studying  these  indica- 
tions, however,  it  must  he  remembered  that  from  the  very  first  individual 
seceded  states  and  the  Confederate  government  were  not  free  to  formulate  econ- 
omic policies  with  reference  solely  to  their  economic  effects.  In  the  brief 
period  before  Sumter  the  policies  were  determined  largely  by  the  necessity  of 
winning  over  the  border  slave  states,  the  desire  to  avoid  war  with  the  North, 
which  leaders  feared,  if  they  did  not  expect,  and  the  need  for  gaining  friends 
in  Europe#  After  Sumter  everything  else  had  to  be  subordinated  to  the  conduct 
of  the  war . 

An  ordinance  was  adopted  by  the  Georgia  Convention,  January  29,  1861, 
declaring  it  to  be  "the  fired  policy  of  Georgia  to  protect  all  investments 
already  made,  cr  which  may  be  hereafter  made  by  citizens  of  other  states,  in 

mines  or  manufacturing  in  this  state  , and  capital  invested  in  any  other  permanent 

1 

improvement."  A resolution  was  introduced  in  the  Louisiana  convention  to 

instruct  the  committee  on  commerce  to  report  on  the  expediency  of  exempting 

from  taxation  all  capital  and  property  employed  in  manufacturing  within  the 

2 

state  for  a tern  of  five  years.  In  the  Texas  Convention  a resolution  was 

1.  J oumal  ...  of  the  Convention  of  the  Pec  ole  of  Georgia  . #1861,p  117. 

2.  Official  J oumal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  the  State 

of  Louisiana,  34. 


A • 


" 5 


' ' 


•j  <.  ' . i O 


n 17 1 
C I X 


introduced  recommending  that  the  legislature  give  adequate  protection  to  the 
manufacturing  interests  and  enterprises  of  the  state.3  Frwn  south  Carolina 
and  elsewhere,  before  Sumter,  came  reports  of  efforts  of  the  people  to  make 
themsel^e  - independent  of  the  No.  th  industrially  as  well  as  p 3 itically. 
Arguments  in  favor  of  home  industry  appeared.  Southern  manufacturers  and  mer- 
chants appealed  for  patronage  on  the  ground,  that  the  South  must  be  independent 
in  all  respects.4 

Secession  gave  an  impetus  to  projects  for  establishing  direct  trade  with 
Eurore.  Cavern  or  Gist,  of  d th  Carclina.  asked  the  legislature  t:  guarantee 
the  interest  of  5 percent  per  annum  upon  the  capital,  invested  in  a line  of 
steamers  to  Liverpool,  which  private  parties  propose  to  establish.  5 pn 
February,  following, a public  meeting  was  held  in  Charleston  to  consider  a veil 
advanced  project  for  establishing  a line  of  three  screw  propellers  between 

/ 

Charleston  and  England,  A committee  was  appointed  to  solicit  subscript  ..ons. 
The  legislature  of  Alabama  chartered  a ’’Direct  Trade  and  Exchange  Company."7 
The  committee  on  commerce,  revenue,  and  navigation  of  the  Louisiana  convention 
was  instructed  to  report  upon  the  propriety  of  state  aid  for  direct  communica- 
tion by  steam  between  New  Orleans  and  Europe , 6 Governor  Brown,  of  Georgia, 
discussed  the  subject  of  direct  trade  in  his  message  to  the  legislature, 
December  9,  I960,  He  asked  authority  to  send,  a commissioner  t"  Europe  to 
investigate  a company  which  had  offered  to  establish  a line  of  five  steamers  t 

3*  J~^rr.al  of  the  3ec.es s -on  C -inversion  cf  Texas,  1-961,  p.  41, 

4,  DeBow’-i  Aeview.  XXX,  371;  New  York  Herald.  War,  26,  1-361,  quoting  a 
number  of  such  ar>p  -0.s;  edit  -'rial  com-'ewtinr  thereon,  ibid.  , Mar.  27. 

5,  Ibid, . Dec.  1, 

6,  Hunt  ’v  Merchants  ’ Ma  va?  ine . XLIV,  524-5;  New  York  Herald,  Mar,  4,  22. 

7,  DeLmv  *s  Review.  XXX,  3&1. 

9,  Gf f icial  J ournsl . etc.  36. 


' 


■ 


V 


, 


, 


. 

' 


. 


* 


272 


make  weekly  tripe  between  Savannah  and  a European  port  if  the  3tate  of  Georgia 
would  guarantee  a 5 percent  return  upon  the  investment, ^ The  legiaLature 
chartered  the  "Belgian  American  Cpmpany."10  Thomas  Butler  King  was  sent  to 
Europe  to  promote  direct  trade  and  to  represent  the  state  of  Georgia  in 
England,  France,  and  Belgium.  He  was  instructed  "not  to  fail  to  present  a 
clear  view  of  the  effect  which  our  Federal  connection  with  the  Norther  Atates 
had  in  attracting,  or  forcing,  our  commercii&I  exchanges  with  Europe,  coast-wise 
through  the  port  and  City  of  New  York  He  wa3  to  show  further  that  the 

result  of  secession  "must  necessarily  be  to  establish  direct  commercial  and 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  all  the  world#"  Northern  manufacturers,  also,  who 
had  been  protected  by  a tariff,  must  now  compete  on  dqual  terms  with  European 

i I 

manufacturers* -*•  When  the  legislature  met  again  in  November,  1*161,  it  had  at 

least  three  direct  trade  projects  to  consider.  Two  had  resul'ted  from  King’s 
mi33ion;  the  third  was  that  of  an  association  of  Georgians  who  would  establish 
a line  of  steamers  as  soon  as  the  blockade  should  be  raised,  if  the  legislature 
would  subsidise  their  enterprise,1^  In  urging  the  matter  of  direct,  trade, 
Governor  Brown  said:  "But  our  deliverance  from  political  bondage  will  be  of 
little  advantage,  if  we  remain  in  a state  of  commercial  dependence* "^3 

. ^ committee  of  the  Provisional  Congress  of  the  Confederacy  was 

formed  to  organize  an  excursion  trip  from  Savannah  to  Antwerp  via  Havre  for 
the  purpose  of  affording  Souther  a merchants  an  opportunity  to  make  arrangements 

S.  Candler,  Confederate  Records  ojf  the  State  of  Georgia.  II,  6, 7. 

10.  IbJLd.,  II,  116;  Avery,  History  of_  Georgia.  131* 

11.  Candler,  op*  c it,  II,  2o  ff, 

12.  Ibid, , II,  115-17,  322-324,  messages  of  Gov.  Brown,  Nov,  6,  1861  and 
Nov,  18,  1862;  ibid, , II,  324,  report  of  a special  committee  of  the  Georgia 
House  of  Representatives, 


13.  Ibid*,  II,  115. 


, 


niu  it,,  . 


■ 

< , ..i.  J 

. . 


273 


for  direct  importations,'*1  Up  to  the  time  of  hia  departure  for  England  as 
a commissioner  of  the  Confederate  States,  Colonel  A,  Dudley  Mann  pursued 
hia  plans  for  establishing  direct  trade, A convention  of  merchants,  bankers 
and  others,  met  in  convention  in  Macon  in  October,  1861,  to  devise  a plan  to 
establish  credits  between  the  Confederacy  and  Europe,  DeBow  *s  Review  commended 
the  purpose  of  the  convention,  3aying,  "It  i3  necessary  to  start  right  on  the 
removal  of  the  blockade  in  order  that  our  former  vassalage  to  the  North  may  not 
be  renewed."^0 

Immediately  South  Carolina  had  seceedea  .from  the  Union  her  convention 
£nd  legislature,  was  confronted  with  the  problem  of  framing  tariff  and 
navigation  laws.  &ach  of  the  other  states  which  seceded  before  the  organization 
of  the  Confederacy  had  to  solve  the  same  problem,  When  the  Provisional  govern- 
ment was  formed  the  task  devolved  upon  it.  The  development  of  the  tariff  and 
navigat  ion  polic ies  of  the  Confederacy  wa3  watched  witn  considerable  interest 
both  at  home,  in  the  border  states,  in  the  North,  and  in  Europe,  and  throws 
some  light  upon  the  motives  of  Southern  leaders. 

When  South  Carolina  seceded  hot  heads  in  the  convent  ion  w is  hed  to  throw 
the  ports  open  to  the  commerce  of  the  world  at  once.  The  convention  rejected 
the  proposal  by  a large  majority  and  provided,  instead,  that  the  revenue  and 
navigation  laws  of  the  United  States  should  be  continued  in  effect,  but  no 
duties  should  be  collected  upon  imports  from  states  ofthe  late  Federal  Union/ 
and  no  tonnage  duties  should  be  collected  upon  ves39l3  from  the  3aid  states. 
Vessels  owned  to  one-third  part  by  citizens  of  South  Carolina  or  of  other 

14.  New  York  Herald,  Mar,  19,  1861. 

15.  Ibid.,  Mar.  19,  23,  1861. 

16.  DeBow  1 s He  view.  XXXI,  325,  AI30  ib  id . , XXXI,  333-47, 


274 


slave-holding  states  night  be  registered  as  Soutn  Carolina  vessel::.'''  The 
ac^-ton  upon  the  t;iriff  was  determined  by  a member  of  conaiderut  j.on3,  Revenue 
v/as  needea.  Tne  members  of  the  convention  were  dividedjupon  the  relative  merits 
of  direct  taxation  and  a tariff  forjrevenue  only.  The  majority  were  not  ready 
to  risk  a clash  with  the  Federal  government  by  attempting  to  collect  duties 
upon  goods  from  other  states  or  by  admitting  foreign  goods  free  of  duty.  The 
Georgia  convention  adopted  an  ordinance  similar  to  that  of  South  Carolina  by  a 
small  majority,  thejminor it>  wishing  to  allow  the  duties  to  be  paid  into  the 
Federal  treasury, In  other  seceding  states  similar  action  was  taken, 

The  states  in  the  Mississippi  valley  werejmuch  concerned  about  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  Mississippi  River.  They  wished  to  continue  their  trade  with  the 
West  and  they  did  not  wish  to  antagonize  sxates  of  the  upper  valley.  Senator 
Slidell,  of  Louisiana,  promised  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  while  yet  in 
the  United  States  Senate.""0  An  ordinance  recognizing  the  report  of  the  right 
of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  by  all  friendly  nations  bordering 
upon  it  was  reported  to  the  Louisiana  convent  ion  along  with  the  ordinance  of 
secession  and  was  adopted  unanimously . ^1  Thesis  sis s ippi  convention  adopted 

a resolution  similar  to  the  Louisiana  ordinance,  also  by  a unanimous  vote»22 
The  Alabama  convention  also  declared  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 

17,  Proceedings  in  J ournal  of_  the  Convention  --  of  South  Carolina  --  1360. 
up.  45-47,  67,  33,  37,  95-96,  103;  debate  in  New  York  He  raid.  Dec,  21,  25,1360, 
Nat  io  nal  Intelligencer.  Dec,  2 5. 

13.  J ournal  --  of  the  Convention  --  of  Georgia.  1361.  pp,  57,  33,  S2,  123. 
The  vote  was  130  - 119, 

19,  Ordinances  and  Cpnstit  ut  ion  of  the  3t  at e of  Alabama  , , , 136l.  p,  13, 

the 

seaports,  took  no  action.  Tne  Texas  convention  took  no  action  because  it  wa3 
expected  that  the  Southern  Convention  at  Montgomery  would  take  the  matter  in 
hand  in  a few  days. 


of  Jan,  23,  1361  > i ournal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the.  Convention  of 


ordinance 

People  of  Florida  1361. 


99.  ordinance  of  Jan,  15i  Official  Journal  of  the 

M 


Cdny>,  of  La,  105.  106,  235,  ordinances  of  Jan*  29,  Mississippi,  having  no 


20. 

21. 

22. 


Cong.  Globe.  36  Cong.,  2 Seas,, 
Official  Journal.  10,  13,  235, 

J ournal  of  the.  State  Convention 


137,  720. 

and  Ordinances  and  Resolutions. 


63. 


t 

• • 

. 


« < 


275 


23 

should  not  be  restricted. 

It  was  not  an  easy  matter  for  the  provisional  government  of  the  Confederacy 
to  fix  upon  a tariff  and  navigation  policy.  The  commercial  interests  of  the 
seceded  states  desired  and  expected  free  trade  or  an  approximation  thereto. 

Free  trade,  it  was  thought,  would  mean  direct  trade,  -'1'-  It  would  tend,  too, 
to  conciliate  the  North  and  make  peaceful  separation  more  possible.  As  early 
a3  December  5,  1860,  Senator  Iyerson  told  the  Senate  that,  if  the  Northern 
.states  would  let  the  South  go  in  peace,  the  new  confederacy  would  treat  them 
as  a favored  nation  in  the  making  of  commercial  treaties,-'*3  Free  trade  would 
make  easier  the  settlement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  It  might 
also  win  sympathy  for  the  Southern  cause  in  England  and  France, 26  Qn  the 
other  hand  the  new  government  must  be  supported;  the  people  were  accustomed  to 
indirect  taxes,  and  the  leaders  hesitated  to  test  their  patriotism  at  the  very 
start  by  a resort  to  direct  taxation.^  There  were  those  who  wanted  a judicio’LB 
tariff  because  it  wouxd  encourage  manufactures.  There  were  localities  with 

interests  to  protect,  Louisiana  sugar  interests  demanded  a tariff.  Others  • 
wished  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  afforded  to  render  the  South  indepen- 
dent of  the  North,  When  in  the  Alabama  convention  W,R,  Smith  proposed  that  the 

South  shoul  a c ont  inue  free  trade  with  states  of  the  old  Union,  Yancey  said  that 

union. 

would  reconstruct  the  most  material  elements  of  the  late  Union  into  a commercial  ^ 


23 , Smith,  Hist or.y  ana  debates  of  the  Convent  ion  of  the  People  of  Alabama, 

1861,  p,  184  f;  Ordinances  and  Constitution  of  tne_  State  of  Alabama.  33,  resolu- 

tion of  Jan,  25. 

24,  William  Porcher  Miles  to  Howell  Cobb,  Jan,  14,  186l;  G.B,  Lamar  to 
Cobb,  Mar,  25,  Toombs.  Stephens.  Cobb  C o rresp o ndenc e ; hat  lonal  Intel igencer. 
Dec,  20,  quoting  the  Charleston  Mercury , 

25,  Cong,  Globe.  36,  Cong,,  2 Sess.  12, 

26,  G.B,  Lamar  to  Howell  Cobb,  Feb,  9,  22,  Mar,  9,  1861,  Toombs . Stephens, 
Cobb  C orres pondende ; D&Bsv/’s  Review.  XXX,  93  ff, 

r 28.  Smith,  Hist ory  and  Debat es  of  the  C 0 nve nt ion  --  of_  Alabama,.;  18 6l.  p.188 

27,  Junius  Hillyer  to  Howell  Cobb,  Jan,  30,  Feb,  9,  1861,  Toombs.  Stephens 

Cobb  Correspondence , 


' 

1 V 


< 


. 


The  attitude  of  the  border  3tate3  was  very  important.  One  of  the  influences 
understood  to  be  deterring  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  other  border 
states  from  secession  was  the  fear  that  manufacturing,  mining,  and  other  inter- 
ests there  wouldjbe  sacrificed  to  the  free  trade  principles  of  the  cotton 
3tate3,  and  the  people  subjected  to  direct  taxation. ^ 

In  various  quarters  duties  upon  exports  were  suggested.  In  his  message 
of  November  7,  1*60,  Governor  Brown,  of  Georgia,  suggested  that  the  power  to 
levy  an  export  duty  upon  cotton  would  be  a powerful  support  to  the  diplomacy 
of  a Southern  confederacy!33  It  would  permit  the  Confederacy  to  rai  3e  ample 
revenue  and  at  the  same  time  male  her  import  duties  30  much  lower  than  those 

I 

of  the  North  that  either  direct  trade  would  be  established  or  the  North 
would  have  to  adopt  free  trade. The  possibilities  of  export  duties  as  a 
protection  to  home  industries  were  not  overlooked.  The  chief  considerat ion, 
however,  in  favor  of  export  duties  was  the  need  of  revenue,  A small  tax  on 
cotton  for  example  could  be  easily  collected  and  would  net  a considerable  sum,c^ 
In  the  border  states  the  suggestion  of  export  duties  was  welcomed  because  it 
relieved  apprehension  of  direct  taxation. 33 

The  committee  of  the  Montgomery  Convention  on  a provisional  constitution 
for  the  Confederate  states  reported  a clause  which  forbade  rotective  tariffs 
and  prohibited  duties  in  excess  of  15  percent,  with  the  proviso  that  such 

29.  Junius  Hillyer  to  Howell  Cobb,  Jan,  30,  Feb,  9,  l*6l,  Toombs , Stephens 
Cobb  Correspondence;  DeBow  *s  Review,  XXX,  165;  iNlat  ional  Intell igencer, 

Nov,  27,  1*60, 

30.  Candler,  Confederate  Records  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  I,  52,  /Uso 
Howell  Cobb  in  the  Provisional  Congress,  Annus.!  2,  ncy  cl  oped  ia,  I,  157;  DeBow  *s 
Review,  XXX,  564, 

31.  DeBow  Review,  XXX,  551,-67, 

32.  Ibid, , XXX,  565;  Charleston  C ourier,  -:ar.  25,  1*61 « 

33.  Richmond  Correspondence,  New  York  He ral d , Feb,  3,  l*6l. 


, 


« 


277 


import  and  export  duties  might  be  imposed  "as  may  be  expedient  to  induce 

friendly  political  relations"  with  nations  pursuing  unfriendly  policies.  Tne 

clause  was  rejected*1'1  The  provisional  constitution  as  adopted  contained  a 

clause  almost  identical  with  the  corresponding  clause  of  tne  United  States 

Constitution.0^1  Export  duties,  however,  were  not  prohibited.  On  February  9, 

1861, the  Provisional  Congress  passed  a bill  continuing  United  States  laws  in 

force  November  1,  i860,  which  were  not  inconsistent  with  the  Provisional 

Constitution, 00  Thus  the  United  States  tariff  and  navigation  laws  were 

adopted,  February  18,  Congress  modified  the  tariff  law  to  admit  free  of  duty, 

37 

oreadstuffs,  provisions,  agricultural  products,  living  animals,  and  munitions. 
By  an  act  of  February  28,  an  export  tax  of  one-eighth  of  a cent  a pound  wa3 
levied  on  cotton.0^  On  February  22,  Congress  unanimously  passed  a lav/ 
establishing  the  free  navigat  ion  of  the  Mississippi,^  By  an  act  of  February 
26,  the  United  States  navigation  laws  were  virtually  repealed, and  the  coastwise 
commerce  of  the  Confederate  states  thrown  open  to  the  ships  of  all  nations,1^ 
Another  act,  of  liiarch  15,  authorized  the  transit  of  foreign  mercnandise 

tiirough  the  confederate  states  to  points  beyond  their  borders  free  of  duties^' 
xiegulations  were  at  once  made  to  putfthis  act  into  effect, 42  Thus  the  Confeder- 
ate government  slowly  took  steps  in  the  general  direction  of  free  trade. 

Meanwhile  the  provisional  government  was  engated  in  drafting  a permanent 
constitution  for  the  Confederacy,  On  March  4 the  clause  relating  to  taxes  was 

34.  Senate  Documents.  58  Cong,  2 Sess.,  No.  234,  $oi»  1,  Journal  of  the 
Provisional  Congress  of  the  Conf  ederate  States  of  Amer  ica.  p,  35. 

35.  Constitution  6or  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  Confederate  States 
of  America,  Art,  I,  6,1. 

36.  Statutes  at  Lar^e  of  the  Provjs  ional  Government  o_f_  the  C onf ederate 
St  at  S3  of  America,  etc.^p.  27. 

37.  Ic id . . 28,  38.  Ibiid, . 42,  Sect.  5. 

39,  Approved,  Feb.  25,  ibid, . 36;  Annual  Cyclopedia,  I,  157, 

40.  St atut es  at  Large  of^  the.  Provisional  Government.  38. 

41,  r°id«~»  70.  ~ 

42.  New  York  herald.  Mar.  IS,  21.  President  Davis’s  Message  of  April  29, 
Annual  Cyclopedia.  I,  131,  168. 


. 


. 


. 


' 


« 


« 

• * 

« 


1 

t 

t 


27ft 


taken  up.  As  reported  .from  committee,  it  was  almost  ident ical  with  the 

c orresponding  clause  of  the  United  States  Const itution,  R.  B,  Rhett  moved  to 

add  the  proviso,  "but  no  bounties  shall  be  granted  from  the  treasury;  nor  shall 

any  duties  or  taxes  on  importations  from  foreign  nations  be  laid  to  promote 

or  foster  any  branch  of  industry,"  Tni3  amendment  was  adopted,  Georgia,  wnicn 

had  a small  manufactur ing  interest,  and  Louisiana,  vihieh  had  xhe  3Ugar  industry 

to  protect,  voting  in  the  negative, ^ The  following  day  a clause  was  adopted 

mrfhich  gave  Congress  the  power,  by  a two-thirds  maj  ority,  to  lay  duties  on 

exports.  Upon  motion  of  Rhett,  Congress  was  denied  power  to  appropriate 

money  in  aid  of  internal  improvements  intended  to  facilitate  commerce.  The 

Texas  delegation  voted  against  this  provision,  and  the  Louisiana  delegation 

wad  divided, ^ Texas  was  especially  interested  in  the  Pacific  railroad,  and 

Louisiana  in  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Tne 

Constitution  was  hailed  generally  in  theSouth  as  the  end  of  prot ectionism  and 

46 

special  privilege  of  all  kinds.  Vice  President  Stephens  so  described  it. 

The  Charleston  - ercurv  termed  it,  "the  first  acknowledgment  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  any  people,  of  the  principle  of  just  and  equal  taxation,"  It  .must  be 
rigntfully  administered,  however,'*^  DeBovj^s  Review,  said,  "Tne  protective 
system  receives  its  quietus  thus:  — South  Carolina  free  traders,  however, 
feared  the  new  Constitution  left  a loophole  for  protection^  because  it  placed 

43,  J ournal  cf  the_  Provisional  Congress,  ft 53,  864,  865, 

44,  Toid. . ft69;  Art,  I,  3,6. 

45,  Ibid. . 892.  The  provision  made  certain  exceptions.  Art.  I,  9,6. 

46,  "Corner  stone"  speech,  Moore,  Rebellion  Record.  I,  Doc.  p, 44-45 , 


47.  Mar.  15,  1861,  quoted  in  New  York  He  raid , ’ ar.  IS. 
4ft,  XXX,  4ft4. 


I 


. 


279 


no  maximum  limit  upon  the  duties  Congress  mignt  impose.  1'hi3  ms  one  of  the 
grounds  upon  which  a number  in  the  South  Carolina  convention . opposed  ratification 

AC 

of  the  Constitut ion;  the  convention,  however,  ratified  the  Constitution  by 
a large  majority.  The  provision  giving  Congress  the  power  to  lay  duties  on 
exports  likewise  did  not  give  universal  satisfaction:^  In  the  North,  too, 

a few  were  inclined  to  charge  that  the  South  had  abandoned  free  trade  principles. 
The  South  had  claimed  separate  nationality,  said  one,  "and  it  has  proclaimed, 
not  free  trade,  but  a system  of  virtual,  though  covert,  protection  What 

3hall  v/e  3ay  of  their  Chinese  duty  on  exports’"^ 

The  early  action  of  the  Provisional  Congress  in  continuing  in  fbr ce  the 
United  States  tariff  law,  that  is  the  Tariff  of  1857,  wa3  not  generally  satis- 
factory. The  Augusta  Chronicle,  for  example,  thought  Congress  had  done  well 
an  ignoring  the  fallacy  of  free  trade  (Augusta  was  a manufacturing  town)^?  and 
the  action  seemed  to  have  a good  effect  in  the  border  states. D*>  But  many 
feared  that  it  was  not  calculated  to  promote  direct  trade  or  win  friends  in.^ 

Great  Britain  and  France  or  conciliate  the  North  and  West.  March  2,  Mr.  ‘Harris, 
of  Mississippi,  moved  to  instruct  the  committee  on  finance  of  the  Provisional 
Congress  to  enter  upon  a revision  of  the  tariff  with  a view  to  reduction  of  the 
duties  and  an  enlargement  of  the  free  list.  In  explanation  ho  said  that  when 
the  tariff  had  been  adopted  upon  his  motion,  an  early  revision  had  been  promised 
"with  a view  to  the  future  adoption  of  that  policy  which  was  i invite  the 
great  Northwest  to  other  and  cheaper  markets  than  those  to  be  found  in  Boston 
and  New  York,  and  also  enable  the  merchants  of  the  Confederate  states  to  obtain 
their  goods  at  lower  rates  than  those  purchased  by  the  merchants  of  the  United 

49,  J * ur  nal  of  the  C c went  to  r.  ,,  cf  5.C.  ..  i860..,  pp,  207,  214,  255. 

50.  Ibid. , 253;  LeBcw  * a.  Review.  XXXi,  206,  3C5-13;  C.3.  Lamar  to  Howell 
Cobb,  Feb.  9,  1^61,  Toombs . Steuhe ns . Cobb  Corres;  ondence.  53$, 

bi.  Powell,  s on  "Southern  'Wealth  and  Northern  Prof -its",  29. 

52.  Quoted  in  New  York  Times,  Feb.  16, 

53,  Report  of  H.P.  Bell,  Georgia  commissioner  to  Tennessee,  I o urnal  of_ 
the  Convert A on  ;f  Georgia.  369. 


■ 


. 


< 


' 


i 


. 


. 


■ 


States,  and  consequently  be  enabled  to  undersell  the  latter.  Tni3  p licy  would 
throw  the  evils  of  illicit  traffic  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Northern  States, 
end  put  the  crown  of  c ommerc  i&l  supremacy  upon  the  Confederate  States  - in 
ether  v;ords,  achieve  one  of  the  great  positive  advantages  arising  from  our 
separation  from  the  unfriendly  states  of  North  America  - to-wit:  commercial 
independence,"1-*  William  Forcher  Miles,  of  Charleston,  favored  the  resolution. 
He  had  always  supposed  the  South  was  desirous  of  approaching  as  near  free  trade 
as  possible.  Judge  Withers,  of  South  Carolina,  want ed  to  hold  out  free  trade 
to  Europe  as  an  inducement  to  recognition  if  the  South,  A resolution  v/as  in- 
troduced into  the  Louisiana  convention,  "'arch  26,  declaring  for  entire  free 
trade  with  the  Western  states  both  slave  and  free.  Cn  May  17  a new  tariff 
bill  was  passed  in  Congress  over  considerable  opposition  chiefly  from  those  who 
desired  a measure  calculated  to  produce  more  revenue.  '1'  The  duties  averaged 
about  5 per  cent  lower  tha\y  those  of  the  Tariff  of  1957.  Most  manufactured 
goods  bore  duties  of  15  per  cent;  mo3t  important  raw  materials  bore  duties  of 
lo  per  cent;  the  free  list  included  provisions,  breadstuff s,  living  animals, 

munitions  and  munitions  materials,  and  shirs.  The  bill  was  to  go  into  effect 
57 

August  31,  Plainly  the  measure  represented  a compromise  between  the  vari- 

ous views  of  a proper  tariff  policy. 

Meanwhile  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had  taken  action  highly  satis- 
factory to  the  South  when  it  enacted  the  Morrill  Tariff,  approved  March  2,  1961. 
The  bill  fixed  moderately  high  duties  to  become  effective  April  1.  The  oppo- 
sition press  of  the  North  represented  the  Morrill  act  as  a stupendous  piece  of 

54.  Journal  of  the  Provisional  Congress t s 7 ; New  York  Herald,  Mar.  S, 

Debate  cn  Harris^  motion. 

55.  ?f f ic ial  J ournal  of  t he  Convent  ion  of  Louisiana , 99;  Annual  Cyclopedia, 
I,  431;  New  York  Herald . Mar.  27. 

56.  J •'urnal  of  t he  Fr ov is ional  Congress,  242,  act  approved  vay  21, 

57.  Statutes  at  Larne  o f t he  Provisional  Government , 127-3  5.  The  act  was 
amended  in  minor  particulars  by  act  of  Aug.  3,  ibid. . 171. 


. 

: 

. 


’ 


. 


■ 


281 . 

folly  which  would  result  in  direct  trade  for  the  South,  make  it  difficult  to  re- 


tain the  border  states  in  the. Union,  and  alienate  the/sympathies  of  Great  Britain 

tip 

and  France.  The  hew  York  Times,  a Republican  paper,  opposed  it.  The  London 
Tirr.cs  represented  it  as  a blunder  on  the  part  of  the  North.  ^ In  the  '30uth  it 
was  hoped  the  difference  in  the  two  tariffs  would  promote  direct  trade.  3outn- 
ern  j ournals  and  representatives  seised  the  oppostunity  afforded  by  the  Morrill 
bill  to  play  up,  for  the  benefit  of  foreign  opinion,  the  tariff  as  a cause  of 
secession;  and  to  present  to  foreign  nations  the  view  that  it  was  to  their  inter- 
est to  recognise  the  independence  of  a people  which  would  continue  to  maintain 
as  nearly  free  trade  as  its  necessities  would  allow.  President  Davis  and  Vice- 

President  Stephens  both  announced  that  a3  near  free  trade  a3  possible  would  be 

61 

the  policy  of  the  government. “ Secretary  of  State  Toombs  instructed  Yancey, 

Rost,  and  Vann,  Commissioners  to  Europe,  to  point  out  the  differing  views  of 
the  North  and  South  upon  commercial  p&Iicy,  avoid  discu33ion  of  slavery,  and  to 
assure  European  governments  that  the  policy  of  the  Confederacy  v/ould  be  an  ap- 
proximation of  free  trade. ^2  Later  in  the  year,  Secretary  Hunter  in  ni3  in- 

structions to  J.  Y.  Mason  3tated  very  forcibly  the  interest  the  British  people 
had  in  the  establishment  of  a free  trade  republic  in  America.  He  neglected,  how- 
ever, to  emphasise  differences  over  commercial  policy  as  a cause  of  separation; 

the  Southern  states  had  seceded  when  the  government  of  the  Union  had  threatened 

. . , , . , „63  „ r,  , ,,  with  force  andeffect 

to  "destroy  their  social  system."  Yancey,  Rost,  and  Lann  presentecutne  aavan- 

tages  to  European  nations  of  an  independent  Southern  confederacy  dedicated  to 

58.  New  York  Herald.  Feb.  1,  ft,  1*,  27,  2ft,  Mar.  4,  15,  19,  23,  29;  Carpen- 
ter,  Causes  of  the  War,  146  f.,  quoting  anumber  of  Northern  papers.  There  was 
little  debate  upon  the  tariff  in  Congress. 

59.  Quoted  in  Carpenter,  or.cit . , 147;  to  same  effect  in  New  York  Herald , 
Mar.  23,  29,  Apr.  6. 

60.  DeBow  *s  Review,  XXXI,  69-77;  Savannah  Republican,  T,ay  22,  in  ’*oore. 
Rebellion  Rec ord,  I,  Diary  p.  5. 

61.  Applet  cn  *3  Annual  Cyclopedia.  I,  612;  Moore  Rebellion  Record,  I,  4ft, 

62.  Mar.  16,  lft6l,  Richardson,  Messages  and  Pape rs  of  the  Confederacy, 

II,  3 ff . ' ' ' ' 


■ 


2 82 


64 

free  trade. 

Prom  the  first  there  was  a group  in  the  Confederacy  who  wanted  to  make  a 
hold  hid  for  the  support  of  Great  Britain  and  France  by  granting  them  valuable 
commercial  advantages  for  a long  period  of  years,  and  this  group  was  strength- 
ened by  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  President  Davis,  however,  believed  the  proper 
Southern  policy  to  be  to  conciliate  the  North,  if  possible.  In  his  inaugural 

address  he  said:  HAn  agricultural  people, our  true  policy  is  peace,  and 

the  freest  trade  which  our  necessities  will  permit  . There  can  be  but  little 

rivalry  between  ours  and  any  manufacturing  or  navigating  community,  such  as  the 

65 

Northeastern  States  of  the  American  Union."  Even  after  the  war  began  Presi- 
dent Davis  promised  the  North  treaties  of  amity  and  commerce  if  it  would  abandon 
coercion.  He  relied  upon  their  dependence  upon  the  South  for  cotton  to  secure 
the  good  will,  even  aid,  of  European  countries.  Though,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
commissioners  to  Great  Britain  and  France  had  been  instructed  to  represent  that 

approximate  free  trade  would  be  the  policy  of  the  Confederate  government,  they 

67 

were  not  authorized  to  attempt  any  hi$i  diplomacy. 

On  May  13,  1861,  R.  B.  Rhett,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
offered  resolutions  in  Congress  advising  the  negotiation  of  treaties  guaranteeing 
a low  maximum  of  duties  for  a long  period  of  years.  Mr.  Cobb  moved  to  amend  by  stii 
ulating  that  such  treaties  should  not  extend  beyond  five  years.  The  amendment  was 
adopted;  whereupon,  on  Mr.  Rhett’ s motion  the  whole  matter  was  laid  upon  the  table. 
Congress  acted  upon  the  belief  that  the  war  would  be  short;  there  v/ere  perhaps 
still  hopes  that  the  North  would  abandon  the  war  if  assured  that  the  Confederacy 
would  not  adopt  a hostile  commercial  policy.  The  necessities  of  the  South  were 

64.  Letters  to  Secretary  Toombs,  in  ibid. . 34,  42,  60.  See  also  Letter  to 
the  London  Times,  by  John  Lothrop  Motley,  in  Moore,  Rebellion  Record.  I,  209- 
218;  Callahan,  Diplomatic  History  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  81,  109,  116  ff. 

65.  Annual  Cyclopedia.  I,  613. 

66.  Ibid. . I,  618,  139. 

67.  Yancey,  Rost,  and  Mann  to  Secretary  of  State  Toombs,  Aug.  7,  1861, 
asking  for  new  instructions,  Richardson,  op.  cit. . 56-59;  DuBose.  Yancey.  3%. 

68.  Journal  of  the  Provisional  Congress.  214,  253;  Charleston  Mercury.  June 
20,  quoted  in  Moore  Rebellion  Record,  II,  Diary  p.  13;  DuBose,  Yancey,  598. 


38 


. 

. 


283 


not  yet  felt  to  be  great;  the  Confederacy  should  hold  herself  free  to  adopt  any 

commercial  policy  she  saw  fit.  Twenty  years  of  free  trade  with  SngLand  would 

destroy  the  manufactures  of  the  South.  Secretary  of  State  Toombs  seems  to  have 

69 

agreed  with  Mr.  Rhett;  but  President  Davis  was  m accord  with  the  majority. 

The  representatives  in  Europe  were  given  no  new  instructions.  As  the  year  wore 
on  and  the  blockade  of  Southern  ports  tightened,  the  Administration  showed  a dis- 
position to  rely  upon  a shortage  of  cotton  for  the  factories  of  IhgLand  to  bring 

about  the  intervention  of  that  country.  The  exportation  of  cotton  was  forbidden 

70 

except  through  Southern  ports;  and  Yancey,  Rost,  and  Mann  wtote  Earl  Russell 
that  "To  be  obtained  it  must  be  sought  for  in  the  Atlantic  and  Gulf  ports  of 
these  States."”^ 

From  time  to  time  through  1861  and  the  early  part  of  1862,  efforts  were  made 

in  Congress  to  admit  all  goods  free  of  duty  for  a limited  period  except  from  the 
72 

United  States.  A bill  to  that  effect  passed  the  House  April  3,  1862,  by  a large 

majority,  but  was  not  acted  upon  in  the  Senate.'  A convention  of  merchants 

and  planters  at  Macon  in  October,  1861,  had  unanimously  recommended  the 

suspension  of  all  duties  and  the  adoption  of  free  trade  with  all  nations  at 

74 

pea$e  with  the  Confederacy;  and  sentiment  favorable  to  the  course  was 

75 

manifested  elsewhere.  But  in  general  public  opinion  supported  the  policy  of 

76 

the  government.  Confidence  was  still  felt  in  the  cotton  is  king  argument. 

Those  who  wished  to  make  the  South  industrially  independent  of  the  North 
were  disposed,  1861,  to  look  upon  the  war  and  the  blockade  as  a blessing  in 
disguise.  De3ow* s Revi ew  reflected  this  disposition.  In  July,  when  the 
people  were  confident  of  an  early  peace,  DeBow  wrote:  "Secession,  disunion, 

69.  DuBose,  Yancey.  600. 

70.  Act  of  May  21.  Statutes  at  large  of  the  Provisional  Government.  152. 

71.  Richardson,  op.  cit. . II,  70. 

72.  Journal  of  the  Provisional  Congress.  277,  290,  489,  549,  743,  820. 

73.  Schwab,  Confederate  States  of  America.  246. 

74.  Ibid..  245. 

75.  Gov.  Brown,  of  Ga. , Candler,  Confederate  Records  of  Georgia..  II,  115; 
DeBow’ s RfiView.  XXXI.  536  ff. 

75.  ibid. . XXXi,  400-404;  412  ff. 


***** 


2*4 


will  avail  us  nothing  if  we  continueto  have  intercourse  with  the  North  and  to 
trade  with  her  there  is  danger,  grave  danger,  that  in  making  peace  with  the 

nrt 

North  we  shall  restore  the  old  Union  in  all  save  the  name."'’  In  September, 

DeBow  wrote:  "The  blockade  will  make  U3  very  independent  at  the  South,  and  thank 

God  for  it.  Every  branch  of  manufactures  is  springing  up.  Our  people  need  but 
7ft 

this  spur."  President  Davi3  gave  countenance  to  such  an  idea  in  his  message 
of  November  1°!,  l*6l:  "if  they  (people)  should  be  forced  to  forego  many  of  the 

luxuries  and  some  of  the  comforts  of  life,  they  will  at  least  have  the  consola- 
tion of  knowing  that  they  are  daily  becoming  more  and  more  independent  of  the 

79 

rest  of  the  world."  As  the  war  progressed  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  restric- 

. 

tions  on  imports  and  exports  grew.  This  was  due,  chiefly,  no  doubt,  to  a de- 
sire to  coerce  foreign  governments  to  recognise  the  confederacy  and  raise  the 
blockade;  but  in  part  it  was  the  manifestation  of  a genuine  protectionist  sen- 
timent . 

The  early  tariff  and  navigation  policies  of  the  Confederacy,  then,  were 
determined  mainly  by  the  exigencies  of  the  political  situation;  but  there  are 
sufficient  indications  that,  could  they  have  been  worked  out  in  peace  and  inde- 
pendence, they  would  have  been  adopted  with  expectations  of  great  economic  bene- 
fits to  result  therefrom.  As  to  what  the  proper  policies  were,  similar  divi- 
sions would  have  occurred  a3  among  the  secessionists  per  se  before  secession. 

The  free  traders  would  have  won,  at  least  temporarily;  but  the  sentiment  for 
protection  measures  would  have  been  much  stronger  than  the  previous  attitude  of 
tne  Southern  people  on  the  tariff  and  navigation  policies  of  the  United  States 
alone  would  have  led  one  to  expect. 

When  the  cotton  states  seceded  there  waw  considerable  discussion  there  as 

to  v/hat  states  would  ultimately  join  the  Confederacy^  and  as  to  what  states  it  was 

77.  mi,  12.  Bee  also  XXXI,  336.  7ft.  XXXI,  323,  51ft. 

2S.  Annual  Cyclopedia,  I,  624. 

ftC.  This  subject  is  discussed  in  Schwab,  Confederate  Staxes,  23f-,-55. 


■ 


■ 


_ 

r M‘  ’ P*  •'  ;**-<*1  **<?Y.*“  Ml*-'  ■ |.|:  . -,  n~l 


285. 

desirable  should  join.  There  was  by  no  means  a general  desire  that  all  the 
slaveholding  states  be  included  in  the  new  confederat  ion  or  that  only  slave- 
holding states  be  admitted  to  it.  Consideration  of  other  thing3  than  the  be3t 
method  of  preserving  slave  institutions  affected  judgments  upon  the  proper  limits 
of  the  Confederacy, 

There  were  many  in  the  cotton  states  who  preferred  that  the  border  3tates 

remain  with  the  old  Union;  and  the  number  would  have  been  greater  had  there 

been  assurance  of  peaceful  secession.  Extreme  advocates  of  reopening  the 

slave  trade,  such  as  L,  W,  Spratt,  preferred  giving  up  the  border  states  to  the 

82 

abandonment  of  their  favorite  project.  * Extreme  free  traders  and  some  of  those 
who  believed  the  best  chance  of  winning  independence  to  lie  in  enlisting  the  aid 
of  Great  Britain  and  Fraixe  by  commercial  alliances,  feared  the  protectionist 
propensities  of  the  people  of  the  border  states/’0  Others  believed  that  if  the 
border  states  remained  in  the  Union  they  would  preserve  the  peace  between  the 
Confederacy  and  the  Union.  The  party  in  favor  of  leaving  out  the  border 
states  was  quite  strong  in  South  Carolina.  The  great  majority  in  the  cotton 
states,  however,  considered  it  highly  important  to  win  the  border  states.  In 
addition  to  a feeling  of  kinship  and  homogeneity  of  interests,  there  was  a con- 
viction on  their  part  that  the  best  chance  for  peaceful  secession  lay  in  forming 
a confederacy  so  strong  that  attack  by  the  North  would  be  hopeless  of  success, 

81.  Jones,  Rebel  War  Clerk  ’s  Dairy , 41;  New  York  Herald.  Nov,  20,  1°60, 
Washington  Correspondence,  Mar,  10,  quoting  Charleston  Mere ury . Mar.  6;  ibid . 

Mar.  2c;  Moore. Rebellion  Record.  I,  Doc.  p.  333, 

82.  E.  W,  Spratt ’s  letter  to  Hon,  John  Perkins,  Moore,  Rebellion  Record.  Il 

357-65. 

83.  G.  B,  Lamar  to  Howell  Cobb,  Mar.  25,  l°6l,  Toombs  Step  hens  C^bh  C corres- 
pondence . 

84.  The  reference  is  t 0 permanent  policies.  A greater  number  considered 
it  good  policy  for  the  border  states  to  remain  in  the  Union  and  hold  out  a hope 
of  reconstruction  for  the  purpose  of  warding  off  conflict  with  the  Federal  gov- 
ernment until  the  Confederate  government  was  firmly  established. 

85.  Address  of  Fulton  Andersen,  Mississippi  Commissioner,  before  the  Vix*gin 
ia  Convention,  in  J carnal  *f  the  3t  at e C onv ent ion  --  Mississippi,  2lt. 


' 


« 


286. 

While  many  would  have  been  glad  to  restrict  the  confederacy  to  the  cotton 
states  alone,  a considerably  larger  number  would  have  welcomed  accessions  from 
the  free  states  of  the  upper*, Mississippi  valley.  The  desire  to  strengthen  the  Con  • 
federacy  against  it3  enemies  lent  support  to  the  hope  of  Western  accessions;  as 
did  the  wish  to  continue  commercial  relations  with  the  Northwest  without  the 
obstacles  of  customs  lines.  The  commerce  between  the  West  and  South,  it  may  be 
remarked  again,  was  not  considered  indicative  of  "colonial  va3salage"  as  was 
that  between  the  East  and  South,  There  was  yet  surviving  also  an  aspiration  on 
the  part  of  Southern  seaports  to  supplant  Eastern  cities  in  exporting  and  im- 
porting for  the  upper  Mississippi  valley.  The  hope  that  Western  states  would 
sooner  or  later  find  it  to  their  advantage  to  join  the  Confederacy  was  based 
chiefly  upon  an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  dependence  of  those  states  upon  the 
Mississippi  river  a3  an  outlet  for  their  commerce  and  of  the  value  to  the  West- 
ern people  of  their  Southern  trade.  The  Southerners  did  not  feel  the  degree 
of  hostility  toward  the,  people  of  the  West  which  they  felt  for  the  Yankees; 
and  they  believed  the  people  offthe.West  less  strongly  opposed  to  slavery  than 
the  people  of  the  East.  The  opposition  to  seeking  or  accepting  (should  they 
come;  accessions  from  the  West  was  based  upon  the  conviction  that  it  had  been 
and  should  be  the  object  to  establish  a slaveholding  confederacy:  there  should 

be  no  continuance  of  the  discord  between  slave  states  stnd  free  states.  ' In 
the  Georgia  and  Texas  conventions  ordinances  were  introduced  which  looked  to 
the  formation  of  a confederacy  of  slsveholding  states  only;  they  were  not 
adopted.  The  Permanent  Constitution  of  the  Confederate  States  gave  congress 
the  power  to  admit  new  states  by  a two- thirds  vote;  it  did  not  prohioit  the  ad- 
mission of  free  states.  Serious  objections  were  raised  in  the  Touth  Carolina 

86.  Journal  of  the  State  Convent  ion.. .1861.  p,  33  L ;w  = sv- 

87.  J ournal  of  t he  C onvent  i^n  o f C-cor  ~iu . 68;  J p *>r nal  of  t he  Secession 

Convent  ion  of  Texas . 53 , 


. 


' 


■' 


2*7 


convention  to  this  clause.  President  Davis,  in  his  inaugural  address,  called 
attention  to  the  clause;  but  he  tnough.it  to  be  the  will  of  the  people  not 
to  admit  atatespvhich  did  not  have  interests  homogeneous  with  theirs,  Vice- 
President  Stephens  expressed  a similar  idea  in  his  "Corner  Stone"  speech."0 

Without  doubt  the  opinion  was  quite  extensively  neld  in  the  border  states 
and  in  the  North  at  the  time  of  the  secession  of  the  cotton  states  that  a 
chief  object  of  secession  was  to  reopen  the  African  slave  trade.  The  opinion 
was  perhaps  justified  by  knowledge  of  the  agitation  for  renewal  during  the 
years  1*56-1*55,  Tnere  are  strong  reasons,  however,  for  believing  that  the 
importance  of  a desire  to  reopen  the  slave  trade  as  a motive  of  secession  v/a3 
considerably  exaggerated,  perhaps  purposely  so,  by  men  of  the  border  states 
and  the  North, 

The  discussion  of  reopening  the  slave  trade  of  a few  years  previous 
had  made  very  clear  that  the  people  of  the  cotton  3tate3  were  badly  divided 
upon  the  question,  Di3unionist3  had  tried,  and  in  a measure  had  succeeded,  to 
silence  the  agitation  because  they  found  that  it  weakened  the  disunion  move- 
ment, The  discussion  of  those  years  had  made  it  very  clear,  too,  that  the 
bcider  states  were  very  strongly  opposed  to  reopening  the  slave  trade,  Dis- 
unionists  understood  also  that  the  sent  iment  of  European  nations  was  against  it. 
Cogent  arguments  had  been  presented  before  the  election  of  1*60  to  show  the 
futility  of  expecting  a Southern  confederacy  to  reopen  it.  The' 'prospect  of 
reopening  the  trade  was  not  held  out  to  the  electors  as  an  inducement  to  go  for 
secession  during  the  brief  campaign  which  preceded  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  decession  c onvent.icns , On  the  contrary,  leaders  early  gave  the  assurance 

88.  The  Constitution  contained  a "three- fifths  clause"  al3  0.  When  the 
matter  was  being  considered  by  the  Provisional  Congress,  the  three-fifths 
clause  was  dropped  upon  the  motion  of  Keith,  of  South  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Florida,  Mississippi; and  Louisiana  voted  for  the  motion;  Georgia,  Alabama  and 
Texas  against.  Upon  motion  of  A,  H,  Stephens  the  vote  was  reconsidered,  and 
Mississippi  reversed  her  vote.  The  states  supporting  the  three-fifths  pro- 
vision, it  may  be  said,  were  those  having  the  largest  white  population  in  pro- 
portion to  black.  See  J ournal  of  the  Prjwisi_qnal _ Congress.  86l,  862. 


« 

' 


' 

,f  ! 

. 

. 


287a 


89 

that  it  was  not  intended. 

The  conventions  of  the  three  most  populous  cotton  states  adopted  resolutions 
against  reopening  by  great  majorities  end  without  hesitation.  The  Alabama  con- 
vention adopted,  with  only  three  dissenting  votes,  a resolution  declaring  the 
people  of  Alabama  opposed  to  the  reopening  of  the  African  slave  trade  on  grounds 

of  ’’public  policy".  The  debate  made  it  very  clear  that  one  of  the  chief  reasons 

90 

of  "public  policy"  was  a desire  to  win  the  border  states.  The  Mississippi 

convention  by  a vote  of  66  to  13  adopted  a resolution  declaring  it  not  to  be  the 

91 

purpose  or  policy  of  the  people  of  Mississippi  to  reopen  the  slave  trade.  The 

Georgia  convention  unanimously  adopted  an  ordinance  prohibiting  the  African 

slave  trade;  and  Georgia’s  commissioners  to  other  states  gave  the  assurance  that 

92 

the  people  of  their  state  had  no  design  to  reopen  it.  The  Louisiana  convention, 

however,  seemed  to  be  in  favor  of  reopening  the  trade.  A resolution  declaring  the 

people  of  Louisiana  opposed  to  reopening  was  rejected,  59  to  49;  and  another 

instructing  the  delegates  to  Montgomery  to  resist  any  and  every  attempt  to  reopen 

the  slave  trade  end  to  secure  a constitutional  provision  prohibiting  it,  was 

93 

rejected,  83  to  28.  An  analysis  of  these  votes  does  not  show  that  secession- 
ists voted  against  them  in  great  proportion  than  opponents  of  secession.  The  con- 
ventions of  South  Carolina,  Florida,  and  Texas  seem  to  have  tahen  no  action  on  the 
matter. 

The  Provisional  Congress  put  a prohibition  of  the  foreign  slave  trade, 
except  from  the  slaveholding  states  of  the  United  States,  in  both  the  Provi- 
sional and  the  Permanent  Constitution,  only  the  South  Carolina  delegation  voted, 

in  each  case,  for  a substitute  giving  Congress  the  power  to  prohibit  the 
94 

trade.  There  was  strong  opposition  in  South  Carolina  to  the  prohibition.  It 
was  strongly  criticized  in  the  South  Carolina  convention.  The  Charleston 

89..  Southern  Literary  Messenger.  XXXII,  13. 

90.  Smith,  op.  cii,,  194-211;  228-265. 

91.  Journal  of  the  State  Convention  . .,  78,  86. 

92.  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  Georgi a.  59,  363,  369. 

93.  Official  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  Louisiana.  28,  29. See  ante,pp.224fd, 

94.  Jpurnad  oi_  the  x^oyisionaV  Cong  yes's,  3ET,  856. 


xrt 

95 

Mercury  protested  against  the  interdiction.  L.  Spratt  v/as  irreconcilable. 

Mach,  ot  the  South  Carolina  opposition  to  the  prohibitory  clause,  however,  was 

made  because  it  seemed  to  admit  that  slavery  was  in  itself  an  evil;  many  of 

those  opposed  claimed  not  to  favor  the  actual  reopening  of  the  foreigi  slave 
96 

trade.'  The  Louisiana  convention  refused  to  specifically  approve  the  action 

97 

of  the  Provisional  Congress  relative  to  the  slave  trade;  although  it  ratified 
both  the  Temporary  and  the  Permanent  Consi tuti on  of  the  Confederate  states. 
Outside  these  two  states  there  seems  to  have  been  little  dissatisfaction  with 
the  action  of  Congress.  Surely  if  a desire  to  reopen  the  foreign  slave  trade 
had  been  a chief  motive  of  secession,  a constitutional  prohibition  of  it  would 
not  have  been  acquiesced  in  so  readily. 

B.  Tiie  Deci  sicn  of  the  Border  States . 

In  the  border  states  after  the  election  of  Lincoln,  secessionists  tried 
to  show  that  the  election  of  Lincoln,  the  Personal  Liberty  Laws  of  northern 
States,  and  the  abolition  agitation  generally,  justified  secession;  and  the 
opponents  of  secession  refuted  their  arguments.  There  were  those,  toe,  who 
wished  to  mice  continuance  in  tine  Union  contingent  upon  securing  further 
guarantees  for  slavery;  there  were  ethers  7/ho  thought  such  guarantees 
unnecessary.  The  discussion  of  these  points  differ- in  no  essential  respect 
from  the  debate  of  similar  propositions  in  the  cotton  states.  Furthermore, 
seces3i onists  per  sq  and  unconditional  Unionists  advanced  arguments  to  show 
that  secession  would  affect  advantageously  or  detrimentally  the  material 

95.  Mar.  15,  1861,  quoted  in  ITow  York  Herald.  Liar.  19. 

96.  V7.  H.  Russell,  letter  of  April  30,  1861,  on  "The 
3tate  of  South  Carolina”  in  IJoore,  Rebellion  Record.  I,  Doc.  p.  314  ff. 

97.  Official  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  Louisiana. 60. 61 


26 


interests  (other  than  slavery)  of  their  respective  states,  Bui^it  wag  under- 
stood from  the  start  that  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  border  states 
preferred  to  remain  in  the  Union  if  it  could  be  saved  intact,  xhe  initiation 
of  secession  must  c ore  from  the  cotton  states.  Ardent  secessionists  devoted 
their  first  efforts  after  Lincoln's  election  to  persuading  the  cotton  states 
to  take  the  initiative,  in  the  border  states  secessionists  demoted  i<neir 
arguments  chiefly  to  prove  that  it  would  be  to  the  interest  or  honor  of  the-Lr 
respective  3tate3  to  join  a Southern  c ^nfederacy  should  one  be  formed  - or, 
after  the  event,  that  it  was  to  their  interest  or  honor  to  join  the  confederacy, 
Gnealleged  economic  advantage  of  the  secession  of  the  border  states, 
especially  these  east  of  the  mountains,  was  tha^it  would  give  an  impetus  to 
manufacturing.  The  moderate  revenue  duties  imposed  by  the  confederate  govern- 
ment would  amply  ptotect  their  manuf acturing  interests  against  Northern  com- 
petition, In  a Southern  confederacy  the  Northern  slave  states  would  take  the 
place  of  New  England  in  manufacturing  for  the  states  farther  soutn,  Thomas  L, 
Clingman  described  the  manufactures  of  North  Carolina  and  said:  "The  result 

of  '*>nly  ten  percent  duties  in  excluding  products  from  abroad,  would  give  life 

aft 

and  impetus  to  mechanical  and  manuf  act  ur  ing  indusxr^  throughout  the  Soutn, 
Senator  Hunter,  the  author  of  the  ■‘■ariff  of  1^57,  promised  the  border  states, 
especially  Virginia,  that  in  a Southern  confederacy  they  v;ould  tane  the  place 
of  New  England  and  other  no  i>-3laveholding  states  in  manuf  acturing  for  the 
South,  "Under  the  incidental  protection  afforded  by  a tariff,  laid  without 
other  views  than  those  for  revenue  purposes,  there  would  be  an  unexampled 
development  of  her  vast  capacity  for  mining,  manuf actur ing,  agricultural 
and  commercial  product ion,"®^  1,  Randolph  Tucker,  Attorney  General  of  Virginia, 
&■$,  Cong.  Globe,  06  Cong,,  2 Sess,,  4. 

Letter  on  the  Crisis,  Nov,  24,  1^60,  New  York  He ral d , -ec, 
ne Bov;  »s  Aeview,  XXX,  115. 


. 


290 


advanced  a similar  'argument.  00  Tne  Georgia  commissioners  to  Maryland, 

Delaware,  and  Worth  Carolina  urged  in  behalf  of  secession  that  the  cotton 
states  were  agricultural  and  the  states  named  could  manufacture  for  them.  Said 
.Mr,  Hall,  Commissioner  to  North  Carolina:  "Your  material  interests  must  be 

promoted  by  your  speedy  union  with  us  in  the  new  government,  Tne  princely 
treasures  which  have  been  hitherto  lavished  upon  New  England,  will  be  poured 
into  your  lap."^^ 

In  the  border  states  the  free  trade  proclivities  of  the  people  of  tne 
cotton  states  were  feared;  and  Unionists  played  ^pon  tnis  fear.  Tney  showed  now 
free  trade  would  injure  manufacturing  interests  intheSouth  and  how  the  tariff 
would  be  an  apple  of  discord  in  a new  confederacy  a3  ityiad  been  in  the  old. 
Sherrard  Clemens,  of  western  Virginia,  said:  "It  would  be  for  the  interest  of 
the  coast  states  to  have  free  trade  in  manufactured  goods;  but  how  would  that 
operate  on  the  mechanical  and  manuf act uring  industry  of  Missouri,  Kentucky, 
Virginia,  Maryland  and  Delaware ? "^G2  Unionists  al3o  showed  that  free  trade 
would  mean  direct  taxation.  Tne  Confederate  C0ngre33  took  cognisance  of  these 
speculations  in  border  states  when  framing  their  early  tariff  legislation  and 
the  Provisional  and  the  Permanent  Const itut  ion.-1^  Their  action  was  not 
entirely  reassuring,  however,  3ince  it  included  placing  a prohibition  of  pro- 
tective tariffs  in  the  Permanent  Constitution,  J ohn  P.  Kennedy,  of  Maryland, 
•referred  to  the  belief  of  some  that  discriminatory  duties  would  be  laid  on 
Northern  goods  with  a view  to  the  establishment  of  large  manufacturing  interests 

ICO,  In  article  , "The  Great  Issue!  Our  Relation  to  It,"  '->&•,  Let.  Mes.  , 

XXX .u,  IP 7, 

101.  J ournal  rf  tne  Convent  ion  o f Georgia,  325,  330,  364. 

102.  Speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Jan.  22,  i86l,  in  Moore, 

Re'- td  ' ion  Record.  I,  Doc.  p,  25*  See  also  Kennedy,  The  Border  States,  their 
Power  and  Put;,  . 23 , 

103.  H.P,  Bell,  Georgia  Commissioner  to  Tennessee,  reported  that  the  adop- 
tion of  the' policy  of  raising  revenue  by  duties  on  imports  had  strengthened 

the  secession  movement,  in  that  state.  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  Gecrgi-i,  36 9* 


2bl 


in  the  South*  The  Constitution,  he  said,  had  already  put  a veto  upon  protec- 
tion. Once  peace  3hould  be  established,  the  South  would  become  friends  of  the 
North  and  would  revert  to  free  trade.  Northern  manufacturers  could  compete 
with  the  world  in  free  trade;  but  Maryland’s  could  not. 

Much  was  aaid  of  the  commercial  advantages  which  would  accrue  to  cities 
of  border  states,  particularly  Norfolk,  Richmond,,  and  Baltimore,  from  their 
inclusion  in  a Southern  confederacy.  North  Carolina  had  no  seaport  with 
prospects  of  becoming  a New  York  under  the  stimulus  of  the  free  trade  and 
direct  trade;  it  was  understood  that  the  trade  of  the  old  North  State  v/ould 
have  to  contribute  to  the  upbuilding  of  Charleston  and  Richmond  and  Norf oik*-1- 
In  Virginia,  however,  the  commercial  benefits  of  disunion  were  well  canvassed. 
Thej  were  being  discussed  at  Norfolk  and  Richmond  shortly  after  Lincoln’s 
«L  action.  In  the  ^nion,  3aid  Tucxer,  Norfolk  and  Richmond  would  still  be 
dependencies  of  New  York.  "With  the  command  of  the  Southern  trade,  with  her 
extended  Southern  connections,  with  her  commercial  facilities^  Virginia  would 
be  the  great  commercial,  manufacturing  and  navigation  state  of  the  South.  Her 
bottoms  would  replace  tho  se  of  New  England  - her  merchants  and  factors  those 
of  New  York  - ner  factories  those  of  the  free  states. "107  The  efforts  being, 
made  in  Virginia  to  develop  an  extensive  foreign  trade  by  building  railroads 
and  canals  and  making  arrangements  in  Europe,  were  represented  a3  "u~  terly 
vain  so  long  as  our  federal  system  cont  inues, "•L Visions  of  commercial 
grandeur  in  a Southern  confederacy  explain  in  a measure  the  sympathy  with 

104,  "An  Appeal  to  Maryland,"  Moore,  Rebellion  Record.  I,  Doc.  pp.  368-74. 

J ournal  ana_  Br  oceedings  of  the  Missouri  Convent  u?n.  31,  report  of  the  committee 
on  Federal  Relations. 

105,  Clingman  in  the  Senate,  C o ng . Globe.  3$  Cong.,  Exec,  Sess.  of  Sen., 1476. 

106,  Norfolk  and  Richmond  Correspondence,  N.  Y.^e  raid,  Nov,  2%,  Dec.  22. 

107,  J.  Randolph  Tucker  in  article  cited  above. 

108-  Willoughby  Newton,  Nat i onal  untei.li.ge nc er , Nov.  24,  lloG. 


. 


292 


secession  manifested  in  Baltimore.  Opponents  of  secession,  ho  we  vep,were  able 
to  show  the  baselessness  of  these  expectations.  Sven  should  Southern  indepen- 
dence change  the  course  of  Southern  trade,  which  mv&s  highly  problematical, 
what  had  Baltimore  to  hope  from  the  change?  they  asked.  "Will  she  import 
for  the  South,  from  the  head  of  the  Chesapeake,  whilst  Norfolk  lies  on  the 
margin  of  the  sea  at  its  north  Even  merchants  of  St.  Louis  were  led 

to  believe  that  somehow  separat ion  f rom  the  North  would  be  conducive  to  her 
prosperity  and  hake  her  the  metropolis  of  the  V alley, ' 

But  it  was  generally  recognized  that  secession  offered  few  or  no  positive 
advantages  to  the  western  border  states.  "Disunion  at  the  slave  line,"  3aid  one, 
"carries  such  obvious  and  inevitable  destructive  results  in  Kentucky,  Tennessee 
and  Missouri  that  no  Utopian  projector  of  a Southern  Confederacy  ha.3  ever  yet 
had  the  ingenuity  to  suggest  even  the  plausible  semblance  of  any  compensating 
advantages  to  these  three  states.  as  far  as  material  interests,  other 

than  slavery,  were  concerned,  the  choice,  in  case  of  a disruption  of  the  Union, 
between  going  with  the  Soutn  and  remaining  with  the  North  was  a choice  between 
two  evils.  And  in  each  of  the  border  3tate3  the  decision  wa3  affected 
more  powerfully  by  a consideration  of  which  alternative  would  cause  less 
disturbance  and  injury  to  esiabl  is  he  d relations  of  trade  and  intercourse  than 
it  was  by  expectations  of  positive  advantages  to  result  from  joining  a Southern 
c onf oderacy . 

North  Carolina  was  very  slow  t o 3ecsde.  Her  people  were  conservative. 

1C;.  John  P.  Kennedy,  "An  Appeal  to  Maryland,"  cited  in  note  104. 

110,  J carnal  and  Proceedings  of  t he  Miss  ■•'un  C onv ent  io n.  Proceedings, 

p.  p6;  New  York  He ral d,  Dec.  17,  1360,  remarks  of  rr.  Grow  in  a meeting  of  the 
St.  Louis  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

111.  South  Carolina.  D>3aru',n.  an  .d  a.  Mississippi  Valle p C^nf  ederac;y , p.  a. 


- 


■ 


293 


The  state  ms  often  referred  to  as  the  Rip  Van  Winkle  of  the  South,  Leaders 
of  tne  secession  movement  had  perfect  confidence,  however,  that  Nortn  Carolina 
would  go  out  if  Virginia  did  so;  for,  aside,  from  questions  of  defense,  the 
chief  routes  of  trade  and  travel  lay  across  the  boundaries  of  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina,  That  portion  of  Virginia  which  lay  between  the  mountains 
and  the  Chesapeake  had  important  commercial  connections  with  both  the  Nortn 
and  the  South,  But  the  routes  of  trade  upon  which  Virginia  cities  depended  for 
their  prosperity  were  to  the  South  and  Southwest,  The  moat  important  railroad 
tne  Virginia  and  T'ennessed,  ran  via  the  southwest  corner  of  the  sxate  in  tne 
direction  of  Chattanooga,  whence  connection  ms  had  with  Nashville,  Memphis 
and  New  Orleans,  Another  important  road,  tne  Petersburg  and  Weldon,  ran 
south  and  connected  with  North  and  South  Carolina  road3,  Tne  Snenandoah 
Valley,  however,  and  much  of  Northern  Virginia,  had  been  made  commercially 
tributary  to  Baltimore, 

The  commercial  interests  of  Baltimore  would  be  an  important  factor  in  the 
decision  of  Maryland,  Baltimore  was  the  commercial  center  of  central  Maryland 
much  of  northern  Virginia,  and  to  a limited  extent  for  the  Susquehanna  valley, 
in  Pe nnsylvania.  But  the  most  important  connection  wa3  tne  Baltimore  and 
Onio  railroad.  The  road  ran  up  thePotomac  river  to  Cumberland  and  thence  to 
Wheeling,  with  a branch  across  western  Virginia  to  Parkersburg,  At  Wheeling 
and  Parkersburg  connections  were  made  with  the  network  of  railroads  in  the  old 
Northwest,  Tne  possession  of/tnis  western  c onnect  ion  promoted  Union  sentiment 
in  Baltimore,  especially  because  western  Maryland  and  northwestern  Virginia 
snowed  strong  Union  tendencies.  John  P,  Kennedy,  of  Maryland,  referred  to  xne 
unf r iendliness  of  eastern  Virginia  to  Maryland  *3  internal  improvement  policy 
and  the  friendliness  of  the  western  counties;  "Tne  true  friends  and  allies  of 
our  policy  are  in  the  We3t,  At  this  momentjthat  region  i3  making  its  protest 
against  secessio  . It  is  a matter  of  deepest  moment  that  we  should  wisely 


. 


• , 


294 


appreciate  this  fact."--^ 

One  explanation  of  the  strong  union  sentiment  of  western  Virginia  was  the 
identity  of  economic  interests  with  neighboring  portions  of  Ohio,  Pennsylvania, 
Kentucky,  and  Maryland  rather  than  with  eastern  Virginia.  The  trade  of  Western 
Virginia  went  not  across  the  mountains  to  Richmond  and  Norfolk  but  to  Cincin- 
nati, Pittsburg,  and  other  cities  on  the  Ohio  -river  and  by  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  railroad  to  Baltimore.  Governor  Fierpont  said  secession  would  be  fatal 
to  the  material  interests  of  West  Virginia,  "Secession  and  annexation  to  the 
South,  would  cut  off  every  outlet  for  our  productions.  it  is  quite 

probable  that  the  failure  to  complete  the  Cnesapeake  and  Qnio  railroad  and  the 
River  and  Kanawha  canal  before  the  Civil  War  was  a deciding  factor  in 
the  division  of  Virginia  on  the  secession  issue. a desire  to  unify  x he 
state  had  been  one  of  the  motives  of  those  who  zealously  supported  tne3e 
projects.  It  i3  possible,  too,  that,  could  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  railroad 
have  been  completed  and  successfully  operated  before  1861,  the  ties  which 
oound  Virginia  to  the  Union  would  have  been  mofe  difficult  to  break.  It  is  not 
without  significance  that  the  leading  and  most  persistent  advocate  of  a Western 
connection,  Joseph  Beggar,  although  a resident  of  the  tide-water  region, 

115 

declined  to  go  with  hi 3 state  in  secession,  and  became  an  exile  during  the  War, 

nt 

In  the  case  of  Tennessee,  going  South  would  without  doubt  cause  xhe  least 

pi  L 

disturbance  and  injury  to  established  relationships  of  trade  and  intercourse.-*--1-0 
Most  of  the  cotton  of  Tennessee  went  via  Memphis  to  Aew  Orleans,  a comparatively 

112.  Moore,  Re  bell  ion  Rec  ords.  I,  Doc,  p,  372. 

113.  Ibid. , II,  Doc,  p.  158,  Also  Virginia  Senate  Journal  and  Do  ^ ere  r,  s. 
extra  3e33ion,  186l,  p.  20,  message  of  Governor  Letcher. 

114.  A Richmond  correspondent  wrote,  in  New  York  Mefaiu , Nov,  22,  lr-60: 

"Tne  facilities  of  intercommunicat  ion  between  Western  a'nd  Eastern  Virginia, 

and  the  frequent  intercourses  which  result  therefrom  have  procured  a unity  of  j 
sentiment  between  the  people  of  both  sections  which  no  one  co ulWhav e antici- 
pated ten  years  ago,,,.  They  are  breaking  up  the  association  of  the  people  of 
the  West  with- those  of  the  border  free  states  which  were  heretofore  a necessity 
of  trade," 

lib.  Letter  of  Mon.  Joseph  Sejfgar  to  a Friend  in  Virginia,  etc.  (Pamphlet  lr  o2 
— anj  in  ’Tennessee,  13,  22. 


■ 


1 


t 


295 


small  amount  went  by  rail  to  Charleston  and  Savannah.  Still  less,  perhaps, 
went  up  the  Mississippi,  and  by  other  routes  to  the  factories  of  the  Ohio 
yalley.  Tennessee  tobacco  found  an  outlet  chiefly  by  va,  of  New  Orleans, 

Mules,  hog3,  grain,and  whiskey  from  the  farming  districts  were  sold  to  the 
planters  of  the  cotton  belt.  With  the  opening  of  the  Virginia/and  Tennessee 
Vail  road,  the  export  of  grain  by  way  of  Virginia  began,  imports  into  Tennessee, 
however,  came  from  all  directions  - from  New  Orleans,  from  Charleston  and 
Savannah,  to  some  extent  from  Virginia,  and,largely,  from  Cincinnati,  Louisville, 
and  St.  Louis  by  rivers  and  railroads;  it  isjnoteworthy  that  while  east 
Tenne33ee  was  about  as  firmly  bound  to  the  South  by  economic  ties  as  any  other 
pui-t,  yet  no  district  in  the  South  had  a population  more  loyal  to  the  Union. 

The  explanation  lies  elsewhere  than  in  such  economic  c ons  ^derations  a3  are 
here  stated. 

What  nas  been  said  of  the  economic  tie3  of  Tennessee  was  true  in  greater 
degree  of  Arkansas,  There  were  no  railroads,  Arkansas  products  found  an  outlet 
chiefly  by  river  routes,  Memphis  and  New  Orleans  were  the  commercial  centers. 
Governor  Hector  stated  the  situation  concisely,  Arkansas  was  disposed  to  be 
conservative  as  were  Maryland,  Virginia,  Missouri,  Kentucky,  and.  Tennessee.  3ut 
Arkansas  was  the  natural  ally  of  the  cotton  states.  She  was  bound  to  them  by 
tne  institution  of  slavery  Missouri  might  rid  herself  of  it;  Arkansas  could 
not.  "With  the  mart  and  channel  of  Southern  commerce  in  the  possession  add 
control  of  the  States  of  Louisiana  and  Mississippi,  what  would  be  the  condition 

of  Arkansas  should  she  determine  to  adhereto  the  Union?"-'-' 

In  Kentucky  and  Missouri  it  ms  generally  recognized  that  a3  far  as 

economic  interests,  other  than  slavery,  were  concerned,  the  states  had  much 
to  lose  and  little  to  gain  by  seceding.  Mr,  Gamble,  later  governor  of 
Missouri,  put  the  matter  tersely  in  the  Missouri  convention:  "Our  interests 
as  a state  are  bound  up  inseparably  with  the  maintenance  of  the  Union;  our 

117.  Message  to  the  legislature,  New  York  Herald,  Dec,  29,  l'-6'. 


296 


sympathies,  our  personal  sympathies,  in  a large  measure  with  the  eople  of 
the  South,"  n Most  of  the  trade  and  intercourse  ofthese  states  was  with  and 
by  way  of  the  free  states  of  the  North.  They  were  dependent  upon  about  the  same 
markets  as  southern  Illinois,  ^nd-Lana,  and  Ohio,  "It  is  true,"  wrote  a para- 
pnleteer,  "that  much  the  larger  amount  of  the  trade  of  the  Northwe3t  tends  to 
the  hast,  and  not  in  the  South,  and  if  weighed  in  merely  commercial  scales 
the  question  of  connection,  as  between  the  two  would  preponderate  in  favor  of 


T-*  X f 119 

the  Sast,"  * The  east  and  west  railroads,  built  during  the  last  decade  or 
30,  had  reversed  the  outlet  and  outlook  of  these  and  other  Western  states; 
ana  of  this  the  people  were  well  aware,  A correspondent  of  v ohi  J.  Critiendon 
wrote  him:  but  since  railroads  have  Intervened  there  can  be  no  division 

between  the  people  of  the  Mississippi  valley  north  of  Kentucky  (including 
that  state)  and  ail  Kasyand  Northeast  - the  ’railroad  ’tells  the  stor^,"^^ 
Delegates  in  the  Missouri  convention  said  3t,  Louis  owed  her  greatness  to  the 
Union,  and  nothing  should  be  done  to  blast  her  progress,*'"*1'  They  also  gave 
co  ns  id  e r at  i on  to  the  prospect  that  the  route  of  the  Pacific  railroad  would  lie 
across  the  state,  "And  Missouri  stands  in  the  pathway  of  nations;  over  her 
soil  this  pathway  must  run  as  inevitably  as  fate,  "^22 

But  if  economic  and  commercial  ties  made  it  almost  a necessity  that 
Kentucky  and  Missouri  remain  with  the  North,  their  commercial  relations  with 
the  South  were  so  valuable  tnat  the  destruction  Af  the  Union  wuid  be  a great 
blow  to  their  prosperity,  ot.  Louis  and  Louiswiile  each  had  a large  Southern 
trade.  Hemp  and  tobacco  were  sent  South,  Mule3  and  horses,  bacon,  por£,  and 
corn  were  shipped  doom  the  Mississippi  or  over  the  ^ouisville  and  Nashville 

lift.  J our  ml  and  Proceedings  A_f  t he  Missouri  Convent  ion.  Proceedings,  p,6'7. 
See  also  the  address  of  the  ^order  State  Convent  ion  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  Moore.  Rebellion  Record,  I,  Doc.  p.  352, 

11 9 , 3 out  h Car  olina.  Disunion,  and  a ^ississ  i:pi  Valley  Confederacy  . 14 . 

120.  C.J, Davis  to  J.J. Crittenden,  Jan,  1,  lft 6l,  J ,J  ,Cr  it  ■ enden  U33. 

121,  Journal  and  Proceedings,  11,  °6. 

122.  Pcid,,  122. 


, 

' 


■ 


257 


railroad  and  by  other  routes  to  the  cotto  and  sugar  plantations.  The  people 
of  the  interior  states,  not  only  of  Kentucky  and  Missouri  but  of  Illinois, 

±owa,  Indiana,  etc.  as  veil,  whose  prosperity  depended  3c  largely  upon 
unimpeded  access  to  the  sea,  felt  that  they  had  a greater  interest  in  the 
maintenance  of  tne  Union  than  the  people  *f  any  other  section.  Promises 
of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  transit  of  foreign  imports  across 
Southern  territory  free  «f  duty,  were  too  insecure  and  inadequare  to  reconcile 
them  to  the  establishment  of  a foreign  power  between  them  and  the  Guif,^2^ 
Governor  v'aBoffin,  of  Kentucky,  who  strongly  sympathized  with  the  secessionists, 
said  that  the  "mouth  and  sources  of  the  Mississippi  River  camot  be  separated 
without  the  horrors  of  Civil  War. ”^24  Such  facts  as  these  help  to  explain 
why  the  people  of  Kentucky  and  Missouri  were  so  anxious  f or  a compromise  to 
save  the  Union, 

But  considerations ' of  benefits  or  injuries  to  economic  interests  were  by 
no  means  the  only  c onsiderations  determining  the  decision  of  border  states. 
Others  may  be  briefly  summarized. 

The  question  of  the  relation  of  slavery  to  secession  in  the  border  3tates 

presents  several  aspects  peculiar  to  them.  The  people  of  those  states  were 

almost  unanimously  opposed  to  reopening  the  African  slave  trade.  Until  it  had 

been  prohibited  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Confederate  States,  the  fear  that 

it  might  be  reopened  had  been  one  of  the  chief  influences  retarding  the 

125 

secession  movement. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Confederate  states  gave  Congress  the  power  to 
prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  from  the  3lavehoiding  states  of  the  United 

123,  manual  Cyclopedia.  1,3 S6.  124,  Great  Debates  in  Arcr,  History  V.276, 

123,  Washington  correspondence,  N.Y.rieral d.  Nov,  22,  1'  <m';  Raleigh  corres- 
pondence, Jan.  12,  1^61;  ional  Intelligencer,  Nov,  27,  25,  Dec.  25,  lc;6C, 

Feb.  IS,  1*61;  3c.  Lit.  Mes,  XXXI,  452,  XXXII,  13;  J o or  nal  of  the  C ^ nve  nt  ion  of 
Virginia,  $7,  s_.  ...eel  of  Sh-.-rr  rd  Clemens  } of  Virgin  ia,  Moore,  nebelliou  Record, 

I,  Doc.  p.  24;  3:  uth  Carolina.  Disunion  and_  a MlasJ a?  ippi  Valley  C :nf  eweracy  , 

4;  Smith,  Hist  on/  and  Debates  of  the  C onv  e nt  ± o n of  ala  b urn  a , 1.  £,  20fi,  210, 251, 255, 


< • 


' 


259 

war.  The  utter  impossibility  of  defending  thtjjEa  stern  dhore  of  Maryland  and 

Virginia  against  a power  which  could  control  the  sea  and  the  ChesapeaKe  was 

pointed  cut.  Central  Maryland  would  either  be  at  once  overrun  by  Northern 

troops  or  would  become  a battle  ground  of  the  war.132  Tne  defenseless  position 

of  the  Trans- Alleghaney  portion  of  Virginia  ms  a dettrrant  influence  in  tnat 

state;  ~ and  Unioni3t3  portrayed  the  dastructio n war  would  bring  to  eastern 

Virginia,  perhaps  with  little  effect.  Kentuckians  took  account  of  the  three 

free  states  which  on  her  long  northern  boundary,"-3^  ^iisowi  Unionists 

said  secession  could  only  lead  to  the  military  conquest  of  the  .state;  for  it 

was  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  free  states  which  must  have  a highway  across 
13  3 

xt.  * Unionists  demonstrated  the  folly  of  surrendering  a position  in  the 
heart  of  a vast  nation  for  one  upon  the  frontier  between  two  nations  which 
might  find  causes  for  frequent  conflicts.  D To  these  arguments  the  seces- 
sionists could  only  reply,  before  dumter,  that  if  all  the  slaveholding  states 
would  go  out  together  there  would  be  no  war;  they  would  form  a confederacy 
so  powerful  that  the  North  would  not  attack  it.Xc  ' 

Perhaps  more  effectual  than  the  appeals  to  the  f«ar3  of  the  people  of  ' 
the  border  states  were  the  appeals  to  their  Southern  sympathies,  prejudices, 
and  kinship.  They  were  urged  not  to  stand  by  and  permit,  or  assist  in,  tne 
subjugation  of  Southern  states.  The  det  erminat  ion  of  the  Federal  government 

131,  IV.  H,  Coll  ins,  Third  Address  to  th  & Pe  of  Maryland. 

132,  Speech  of  Reveriy  Johnson  at  Frederick,  Hd.,  National  Intelligencer. 

May  11,  1-C«SI;  Message  of  Gov,  Hicks,  Moore,  Re  cel  1 io  .o  Rec r'  rd , D c.  p,15S  ff. 

133,  The  Central  Committee's  address  to  the  people  of  Northwestern  Virginia, 

> Doc.  p.  & J % 

134,  Ibid.,  I,  Doc.  p.  353,  ; II,  Doc,  p.  73,  75. 

135,  J ournal  and  Proceedings  of  t ob  Mxss our.:  C on  venison.  J ournal.  3 5,  52, 
Proceedings,  *6,  112, 

136*  Moore,  Rebellion  Record,  I,  Doc.  p.  2QS,  354;  Collins,  Third  Address 
etc.;  douth  C-arcl  ins..  Pis  uni  or.  and  a Mississippi  Valley  Confederacy,  13. 

137.  do.  Lit . :-e3s . . XXXII,  182  ff.;  Annual  Cyclopedia,  I,  730,  quoting 
address  o f ten  Virginia  Congressmen;  Letter  of  Non,  Joseph  ,£egar  to  a 
Friend  in  Virginia.  28, 


300 


to  maintain  the  Union  by  force  of  arms,  furnished  the  occasion  fot  the 
secession  of  four  states.  In  the  cases  of  Virginia  and  Tennessee  it  is  quite 
doubtful  if  secession  wouldjhave  occurred  had  the  seceded  states  been  permitted 
to  depart  in  peace. T3*  This  was  the  view  taken  by  an  element  in  the  South  which 
wished  to  precipitate  a conflict  with  the  Federal  government  in  ^nier  to  insure 
the  secession  of  the  border  states.  Resistance  to  coercion  was  the  issue  which 
won  over  conservative  Tennessee  Whigs  such  a3  Bell,  E,  H.  Swing,  Neil  3.3ro miM 
and  John  Collander.^®  It  was  the  issue  upon  which  the  secessionists  made 
their  last  stand  in  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri. 

It  is  as  difficult  to  identify  the  secessionists  in  the  border  states  as 
it  was  the  secessionists  in  the  cotton  states.  In  three  the  people  were  given 
no  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  issuejuntil  after  the  outbreak  of  war.  It  is 
impossible  to  state  just  what  the  issue  was  when  the  elctions  were  held  in 
the  other  five.  It  is  certain  that  in  no  state  did  the  majority  favor 
secession  if  the  Union  could  be  preserved  or  rec cnstructed  without  war.  In 
general,  it  would  seem,  about  the  same  classes  came,  sooner  or  later,  to 
favor  secession  which  had  supported  the  secession  movements  in  the  cotton 
tde,  namely;  the  people  of  the  planting  sections  and  of  the  cities  and  tow 
closely  identified  in  interests  with  them.  As  in  the  cotton  states  also,  the 

13’-,  6 f , Fertig,  3.- ~ ^ - , in  Tennessee,  20  ff; 

Kncdes,  History  -f  t he  U. 3.  Ill,  344,  37&,  3^3;  Beverly  Munford,  Virginia  *s 
Attitude  to  yard  Slavery  as  / 3ece3s  ion;  J,H,3otts,  The  Great  Rebell  icr.  205  ff, 

I do  not  name  North  Carolina  in  this  connection.  A large  vote  was  cas+  for 
secession  in  January^  when  it  was  still  believed  a rec  onciliation  could  be 
effected.  The  House  of  Commons  unanimously  resolved  in  -February  that  N. Carolina 
would  go  with  the  South  if  reconciliation  failed,  , a m uni  C y c 1 o ; e a ia . 1,  537, 

Tnis  was  the  opinion  of  men  in  the  cotton  states.  Report  of  Jacob  Thompson, 
Commissioner  from  Mississippi  to  N,  Carolina,  Journal  of  the  Convention  *f 
Mississippi,  1 '•  b.  But  see  J.G,  d^jhoulhac  Hamilton,  .deconstruct j. on  in  u. Carolina, 
21  ff,;  Wm.  K,  B0y  ^ Carolina  on  the  Eve  of  Secession,"  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Kept, 
1910,  177.  ” ‘ — 

139,  Moore,  nebe  lli on  Rec o rd.  I,  Doc,  pp.  72,  137. 


301 


opposition  centered  in  districts  in  which  the  slave  population  was  small  in 
proportion  to  the  vhite  and  in  which  farming  rather  than  planting  was  the 
chief  occupation  of  the  people.  Whigs,  in  general,  were  more  averse  to 
secession  than  Democrats  of  the  same  districts. 

In  North  Carolina  a convention  election  of  January  2ft,  resulted  in  the 
choice  of  ft2  const  itut  ional  Unionists  and  3ft  • secessionists . Tne  opinion  seems 
to  have  been  quite  prevalent  at  the  time  that  the  Union  could  yet  be  peacefully 
reconstructed;  the  issue,  then,  was  neither  strictly  Union  versus  disunion, 
nor  remaining  with  the  North  versus  going  wit  in  the  South,  Of  47  counties  in  the 
eastern  part  cf  the  3tate,  v/here  the  slave  population  was  a high  percentage  of 
the  total  inmost  localities,  17  chose  secession  delegates,  30  Union  delegates. 
Of  the  counties  which  went  for  secession  4 were  normally  YJhig,  13  Democratic, 
of  the  counties  which  returned  Union  delegates  21  could  be  classed  as  Y/nig, 

9 &3  Democratic.  Tne  secessionist  counties  were  grouped  pretty  well  in  the 
southeast  corner  of  the  state.  Of  3*  counties  in  the  western  part  of  the 
state,  in  few  of  which  the  slaves  c instituted  more  tjian  2 5 percent  of  the 
population,  11  selected  secession,  27  Union  delegates.  Of  the  secession 
counties  6 were  normally  Whig,  5 normally  Democratic;  of  the  counties  returning 
Union  majorities,  23  were  hig,  4 Democratic  The  counties  which  chose  seces- 
sion delegates  were  well  grouped  along  the  South  Carolina  border,  j/ilmington 
was  strongly  Democratic  and  secessionist;  Wake  county,  in  which  Raleigh  was 
located,  was  normally  Democratic  but  strongly  Unionist 

in  the  Tennessee  convention  election  of  Fenruary  9,  9ft, ft 03  votes  were  cast 
for  Union,  24,749  for  secession  delegates.  Virtually  all  of  the  seces’-.  . 
votes  were  cast  in  west  and  middle  Tennessee,  but  the  majority  in  all  three 

140.  I nave  U3ed  the  classification  of  delegates  made  by  H,M,Wagstaff , 
otdte  Rx^hts  and  Political  Parlies  in  n.  Carolina,  134 . 


302 


"«  4.1 

sect  ions  of  the  state  were  for  Union.^  x At  this  t hne  tne  people  of  Tennessee 
seem  to  have  believed  the  ^nion  could  be  peacefully  rec  on  struct  ed,^- On 
June  8 the  action  of  the  Tennessee  legislature  declaring  the  state  independent 
and  ratifying  the  C on3ti tution  of  the  Confederate  States,  was  submitted  to  ohe 
people  for  their  ratif ication,  Overwhelming  majorities  in  west  and  middle 
Tennessee  approved,  but  in  east  Tennessee  the  vote  was  almost  as  strongly 
adverse.1-*3  Tne  slave  population  of  the  latter  section  was  very  small  in 
comparison  with  the  white, 

an  election  was  held  in  Virginia,  February  4,  to  choose  delegates  to 
tne  ptate  convention.  Tne  result  was  considered  a uaxon  victory , although  the 
d elegates  could  not  be  classified  accurately  as  Unionists  and  secessionists. 
About  25  or  30  were  considered,  unc  ondit ional  secessionists.1^  No  test  vote 
was  had  in  the  convention  upon  a straight-out  secession  resolutxcn  until 
April  4,  when  3ucn  a resolution  was  defeated  by  a vote  of  £0  - 45.x"’iC  Tnis  was 
long  after  it  had  become  apparent  that  the  ^nion  could  not  be  reconstructed  by 
agreement,  but  before  it  became  certain  that  coercion  was  the  policy  of  the 
government.  All  but  3 of  the  45  votes  for  secession  were  cast  by  delegates  from 
counties  now  in  Virginia;  all  but  14  by  delegates  from,  east  of  the  U]_ue  R^dge. 
All  of  the  counties  with  large  slave  populations  lay  in  the  eastern  section; 
it  was  the  planting  section.  Of  the  45  votes  in  favor  of  secession,  15  tfere 
cast  by  delegates  from  counties  normally  Whig;  30  by  delegates  from  counties 
normally  Democrat ic»  Tne  delegates  from  Richmond  and  Petersburg,  out  not  the 
delegate  from  Norfolk,  voted  for  secession.  After  Sumter  the  convention 

141,  Annual  Cyclopedia,  X,  677;  New  York  Times,  Feb,  15,  lS6l, 

142,  Report  of  H.P.Bell,  Georgia  Commissioner  to  Tennessee,  Journal  of  t_he_ 
Convent  ion  of  Georgia,  3 69;  Fertig,  oeces 3xp  . an.,  ike  . r.s-  rue  U on  i Ti  .**  .^2o, 

143,  Moore.  Rebellion  Record,  lx,  Doc,  p.  169. 

144,  Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.3.  III,  309;  Tyler,  Letters  and  Time 3 of  the 
lexers , 11,  62-i. ; annual  Cyclopedia,  X,  730. 

145,  J o ur  na.l  o f t he  C ommitt  ce  of  the  Who!  e of  til . Convent  ion  of  Vxrgxnia,  3 


303 


decided  for  secession  by  a vote  of  7&  to  64, The  delegates  from  north- 
western Virginia,  now  West  Virginia, Voted  almost  solidly  against  secession; 
those  from  east  of  the  Ridge  voted  almost  as  solidly  against  it,  those 

from  the  intervening  region  were  divided.  This  division  in  the  convention 
reflected  quite  accurately  the  divisions  among  the  people  as  13  shown  by  the 
popular  vote  on  the  ordinance  of  secession  of  May  23  and  the  subsequent 
division  of  the  state, 

Maryland  and  Kentucky  declared,  finally,  for  the  ^'nion,  but  there  v;a3 
strong  sympathy  in  each  with  the  secession  movement.  In  Maryland  the  East 
Shore  and  the  western  part  were  strongly  Unionist.  Secession  sentiment 
developed  chiefly  in  the  planting  region  of  central  Maryland,  and  was  reflected 
in  Baltimore,  In  Kentucky  it  was  strongest  in  the  Blue  Ura3s  region  of  the 
central  part  and  the  tobacco  counties  of  the  southwest.  The  delegates  in  the 
Missouri  convention  who  wished  to  resist  coercion  of  the  seceded  states  by  the 
Federal  government  represented,  with  a few  exceptions,  counties  along  the 
Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers, ^ There  werethe  district s^r/hich  had  a con- 
siderable slave  population;  there  tobacco  and  hemp  were  grown, 

Tne  opposition  of  the  non- slaveholding  districts  of  the  border  states  to 
secession  did  not,  in  general,  signify  nostility  to  slavery.  IV  signified, 
however,  a degree  of  indifference  to  the  preservation  of  slavery  and  a disposi- 
tion to  remember  that  slavery  ms  not  the  only  important  interest  to  be 
considered.  This  disposition  found  frequent  expression.  For  example, 

Mr,  3rodhead,  in  the  Mis  so  ur  i Convent  ion,  said  negro  slavery  wa3  not-  the  only 

14-6,  This  is  the  test  vote,  not  the  vote  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
ordinance  of  secession,  J ournal  of  tn^  3ec ret  Session.  p«  •*. 

14 V,  ah n - . C c 1 0 0 e d ia , 737  ff;  743,  Rhodes  $1,  3*7. 

14fi.  An  analysis  of  several  divisions  of  the  Convention, 


304 


great  interest  in  Missouri.  Slaves  comprised  less  than  one- ninth  of  the 
taxable  property  of  the  state.  The  white  population  was  increasing  v o ur  whr.es 
as  rapidly  as  the  slave.  The  slaves  were  engaged  in  raising  hemp  and  tobacco 
principally.  There  were  mining,  manufacturing,  axd  commercial  interest 
carry  on  which  white  labor  was  required.  If  Missouri  3eceded,  the  white 
laborers  woulc^iot  come,  "when  they  know  that,  as  far  as  our  political  power  is 
concerned,  v.e  shall  be  subjected  to  the  cotton  lords  of  South  Carolina  ana 
Louisiana."14”'  Only  in  a few  localities,  such  as  St.  Louis,  vnj.cn  had  a 
large  German  and  Northern  population,  was  there  an  active  hostility  to  slavery. 
The  Unionists  of  the  border  states  entered  the  war  with  the  understanding 
that  it  was  a war  to  preserve  the  Union,  not  to  destroy  slavery. 

In  two,  at  least,  of  the  border  states,  Tennessee  and  Virginia,  the 
divisions  of  the  people  on  the  secession  issue  corresponded  rather  closely 
to  long  standing  sectional  divisions.  Tennessee  sectionalism  was  based  largely 
upon  social  differences  between  the  people  of  the  east  and  those  of  the  middle 
and  west.  The  people  of  east  Tennessee  resented  the  political  domination  of 
the  state  by  the  planting  society,  While  they  did  not  hate  slaver, , wney 
believed  that  the  South  should  be  a white  man’s  country,  and  that  one  ran  was 
as  good  as  another.  They  were  not  disposed  to  fight  in  support  of  a movement 
which  they  conceived  to  have  been  inaugurated  to  perpetuate  and  establish  more 
firmly  an  aristocratic  social  system.  Andrew  Johnson  was  a typical  represen- 
- tative  of  east  Tennessee.  "We  find..,"  ^id  he, "that  the  whole  idea  is  to 
establish  a republic  based  upon  slavery  exclusively,  in  which  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  are  not  to  participate."  And  again,  "we  hold  (in  east  Tennessee) 
that  it  is  upon  the  intelligent  free  white  people  of  the  country  tha-  all 


governments  should  rest,  and  by  them  all  governments  should  be  controlled.* 

143.  J ournal  and  ?r  ceeediags.  of.  Mia^uri  Convenxio^  Proceedings,  - • 

See  also  xbidTT  d p.  3E  Record*.  I,  » ^.Carolina, 

■ ^ _ r 


1.50 


Disunion,  a wd.  s.  Missies  yr -1  C - , 

50,  Speech  i V---  • - , " ■>  "1,  i -> 


t 


30b 


The  old  sectional  division  in  Virginiojhad  grown  in  part  out  of  social 
differences  similar  to  those  in  Tennessee,  in  part  from,  separation  by 
geographical  barriers.  Politically  it  had  found  expression  in  disputes  over 
legislative  apportionment,  appropriations  for  and  location  of  state  aided 
internal  improvements,  and  the  apportionment  of  taxation.  It  is  significant 
that  the  Virginia  convention  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  state  along  “itn 
the  secession  ordinance,  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  provic-ing  •*•••• 

"Taxation  shall  be  equal  and  uniform  throughout  the  commonwealth,  and  all 
property  shall  be  taxed  according  to  its  value,  The  purpose  of 

amendment  was,  of  course,  to  insure  the  taxation  of  slaves  at  the  same  rate  as 
other  property;  its  proposal  was  a belated  effort  of  the  East  to  conciliate 
the  West.  The  sectionalism  of  North  Carolina  was  not  so  pronounced,  but  was 
not  without  bearing  upon  the  alignment  upon  the  secession  issue.  In  i«ru 
Carolina,  too,  the  ad  valorem  issue  was  agitating  the  state  upon  the  eve  of 
secession.  It  is  not  possible  within  the  limits  of  this  study  to  develop  the 
subject  of  the  relation  of  long  standing  sectional  divisions  within  several 
Southern  states  to  the  divisions  of  the  people  upon  the  question  of  secess:.-  ; 
but  no  study  of  the  reasons  for  the  attitude  taken  by  the  people  in  the  largely 
non-slaveholding  districts  would  be  complete  which  did  no-,  take  them  into 

acc cunt • 

The  decision  of  the  border  states  was  slowly  and  carefully  mace.  It  was 
determined  largely  by  fears  for  slavery,  feelings  of  sympathy  and  kinship  with 
the  people  of  the  cotton  states,  and  considerations  of  their  position  in 
case  of  war;  but]the  people  of  the  border  states  were  powerfully  influenced 
in  their  decision,  too,  by  their  judgments  as  to  the  probable  effect  of 
secession  upon  the  economic  interests,  slavery  aside,  of, (the  localities  Evolve... 
ia.  Journal  of  the  Convention  oj  Vh^  134,  150,  0Biim 

.sors.r;Y-STc7n^ntion  of  VgS*  in  Secret  dessuon,  P.  21. 


, • 


306 


From  this  viewpoint  going  with  the  South  or  remaining  with  the  Union  appeared 
as  the  choice  of  two  evils.  Only  in  eastern  Virginia  and  in  North  Carolina 
did  the  people  of  the  border  states  share  to  any  considerable  extent  the 
expectations  of  people  of  the  cotton  states  of  great  material  benefits  to 
follow  secession  and  the  formation  of  a Southern  confederacy. 


, 


XT  3UVMARY  AND  .OCCLUSIONS 


In  this  study  we  have  considered  some  of  the  economic  aspects  of  Southern 
sectional  ism  during  about  twenty  years  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  This  period  by  no 
■means  includes  the  beginning  of  such  sectionalism. 

The  people  of  t he  South,  generally,  were  aware  of  a disparity  between  the 
North  and  South  to  the  advantage  of  the  former  in  material  development  — popula- 
tion, wealth,  commerce,  industry,  financial  strength,  dis  ribution  of  the 
comforts  and  conveniences  of  life.  Although  at  intervals  the  Southern  people 
were  inclined  to  be  satisfied  with  their  degree  of  prosperity,  their  economic 
organization  and  methods,  and  the  progress  of  their  section,  in  general  they 
felt  that  the  Southern  states  did  not  enjoy  the  propserity  and  were  not  making 
the  material  progress  that  their  natural  resources  and  the  efforts  of  their 
people  entitled  them  to  expect.  Thi3  dissatisfaction  was  not  uniformly  distributed 
throughout  the  South.  It  was  greatest  in  the  older  states.  It  developed  in  the 
newer  states  only  as  conditions  there  approximated  those  of  the  "Ider.  It  was 
greater  in  the  planting  than  in  the  farming  regions.  It  was  greatly  augmented 
because  a political  struggle  between  the  sections  over  slavery,  especially,  called 
sharp  attention  to  the  relationship  between  material  progress  and  political, 
power. 

The  "decline"  of  the  South  was  attributed  to  various  causes  by  those  who 
perceived  it.  Cne  group  persistently  emphasized  the  alleged  unequal  operation 
of  the  Federal  government  upon  the  economic  development  o'  the  sections:  Somev.hao 
earlier  than  the  period  of  this  study,  Southern  leaders,  partic ularly  of  the 
planting  regions^had  come  to  hold  widely  different  views  from  their  colleagues 
in  ether  sections  as  to  the  proper  revenue,  expenditure,  and  commercial  policies 
to  be  followed  by  the  Federal  government.  They  opposed  higa  tariffs,  hea,ry 
governmental  expenditures,  aid  to  private  enterprises,  oouncies,  and  specie 


. 


■ 


, 


308 


favors  of  all  kinds,  because  they  thought  thair  section  was  not  equally 
bene  fitted  thereby.  As  years  went  by  and  they  werejnct  always  able  to  make  their 
views  prevail,  they,  of  the  Calhoun  school,  came  to  attribute  the  decline  of  the 
South  to  policies  which  they  had  opposed,  Thi3  group  was  strong  in  the  cotton 
states. 

Others  attached  comparatively  little  Significance  to  governmental  reactions 
upon  economic  development;  they  attributed  Southern  "decline"  chiefly  to  a t oo 
exclusive  devotion  to  undiversified  agriculture  attended,  as  it  was,  by 
industrial,  commercial,  and  financial  dependence  upon  the  North  and  Europe,  and 
by  unsatisfactory  methods  of  marketing  and  buying.  These  conditions  had  come 
about  in  a natural  way;  but  because  of  them  the^  out  hern  people  produced  wealth 
while  others  enjoyed  it.  Men  of  this  class  would  have  diversified  agriculture; 
they  pleaded  for  the  introduction  of  cotton  manufactures;  they  proposed  plans 
for  securing  direct  trade  with  Europe;  they  dreamed  of  railroad  connections 
with  the  Northwest  and  with  the  Pacific  which  would  rehabilitate  Souther  i cities; 
they  advocated  various  measures  of  a protective  character  on  the  part  of  state 
and  local  governments;  they  asked  that  sectional  patriotism  and  pride  take  the 
form  of  developing  the  economic  resources  of  the  South, 

Tne3e  classes,  generally,  agreed  that  slavery  wa3  notlthe  cause  of  the  lagging 
prosperity  of  the  section.  They  agreed,  slaveholders  and  non- slaveholders,  that 
slavery,  the  plantation  system,  and  the  production  of  great  staples,  must  remain 
fundamental  features  of  the  South’s  economic  system.  Some  of  them,  to  be  sure, 
were  aware  that  slavery  had  off-setting  disadvantages  in  that  it  restricted  the 
Opportunities  of  white  labor,  deprived  it  of  leadership,  and,  consequently, 
deprived  the  South  of  its  full  services,  and  acted  as  a bar  to  the  immigration 
of  reinforcements.  There  was  a class,  also,  in  the  South  which  opposed  Slavery, 
namely,  non- slaveholders  of  the  laboring  class  who  came  into  competition  with 
slave  labor;  but  the  class  was  only  beginning  to  be  numerous  and  vocal. 


' 


, t 


i 


' 


* , 


305 


Not  economic  reason  only  explain  the  determination  of  the  great  majority  to 
maintain  the  institution  of  slavery.  Aside  from  the  fact  that  it  constituted 
a vast  Vested  interest,  that  it  was  established  i ;ial  organization  and 

social  prestige  accrued  to  the  owners  of  big  plantations,  was  the  firm  convic- 
tion that  a superior  and  an  inferior  race  could/not  live  side  by  side  (the  negroes 
were  here  to  stay)  without  the  greatest  social  disorders;  unless  the  imferior 
race  were  in  bondage.  Some  of  the  staunchest  defenders  of  the  institution 
refused  to  support  plans  for  the  economic  regeneration  of  the  South,  because 
they  feared  that,  if  successful,  they  would  prove  incompatible  with  the  con- 
tinued security  of  slavery.  The  majority,  however,  were  either  unaware  of  the 
incompatibility  or  unafraid.  Line  their  fellow  Americans  in  the  other  sections, 
most  Southerners  were  not  seeking  a static  society.  They  were  willing  to  adapt 
themselves  to  changing  circumstances.  And,  while  progress  and  change  may  have 
S3  rapid  in  the  ante-bellum  South  than  elsewhere  in  the  Un 
error  to  regard  Southern  society  as  stationary. 

Those  who  emphasized  the  unequal  operation  of  the  Federal  government  as  a 
cause  for  Southern  decline  came  early  to  believe  that  independent  nationality 
would  result  in  great  material  advantages.  Many  of  those  who  advanced  the 
various  plans  for  regeneration  mentioned  above  came  eventually  to  believe  that 
they  could  better  be  carried  into  effect  in  an  independent  republic.  These 
views  pre sented  repeatedly  to  the  Southern  people  convinced  the  great  majority 
in  the  cotton  states  that  while  secession  might  not  be  attended  by  any  vast 
positive  benefits,  it  would  not  be  attended  by  any  serious  disadvantages;  thus 
were  they  reconciled  to  a step  which  they  were  convinced  was  necessary  to  re- 
serve slavery  and  maintain  Southern  honor,  Wien  the  auspicious  occasion  came, 
the  cotton  states  promptly  went  out  of  the  Union.  The  people  of  the  oorder 
states  hesitated,  ’"ith  them  slavery  was  not  such  a pred^kinat Lng  interest. 

From  an  economic  point  of  view  they  stood  to  lose  whether  they  went  out  or 


< 


i'v 


310 


stayed  in.  But  confronted  by  a fait  accompli  and  war  on  one  aide  or  the 
other,  they  went  with  misgivings,  where  their  sympathies,  associations,  or 
interes  ts  chiefly  lay. 

Now  what  basis  had  Southern  sectionalism  in  actual  economic  facts?  There 
can  be  no  doubt  of  the  divergent  economic  interests  of  the  sections;  one  suction 
was  growing  less  rapidly  in  wealth  and  numbers,  and  was  economically  dependent 
upon  the  other.  The  divergence  dated  far  back,  even  into  colonial  times. 
Fundamental  causes  lay  in  geography,  climate,  3oil,  and  natural  resources.  Less 
important  were  conditions  of  settlement.  The  South  had  received  a smaller 
proportion  of  thrifty  sturdy,  middle  class  stock  than  had  the  North, 

Slavery  was  both  effect  and  cause.  In  days  when  slavery  was  considered 
no  evil,  natural  conditions  (soil  and  climate)  explain  why  slavery  was  estab- 
lished and  flourished  chiefly  below  New  Jersey.  Once  established,  however, 
slavery,  notwithstanding  its  great  services  in  clearing  forests,  draining 
marshes,  and  growing  great  crops  of  staple  products,  was  responsible  for  or 
tended  to  perpetuate  some  of  the  evils  of  the  South’s  economic  system.  It  tended, 
to  keep  the  South  exclusively  agricultural  and  to  confine  agriculture  largely 
to  the  production  of  a few  great  staples  because  it  was  best  adopted  to  such 
an  organization.  It  was  largely  res  jible  for  a great  mass  of  undirected, 
semi-productive  white  labor  in  the  South, 

3ut.  not  too  much  should  be  attributed  to  slavery.  The  South  was  vast  in 
area,  population  s„  read  easily  and,  perforce,  remained  sparse.  In  1360  the 
oldest  portions  of  the  South  still  possessed  characteristics  of  a frontier,  and 
their  business  methods  we  re  appropriate  thereto;  they  were  still  in  the 
exploitation  3tage,  The  South  wa3  farther  from  Europe  than  the  North,  Her 
Iwbora  were  not  so  good  as  the®  of  the  North,  Her  mineral  resources  were 
less  extensive  and  less  accessible.  Her  soil  wa3  less  productive  than  that  of 


' 


■ 

. 


I 


311 


the  Northwest.  Her  climate  was  more  enervating  than  that  of  other  sections. 

The  differing  views  of  governmental  policies  grew  out  of  different  economic 
conditions.  Northern  states  could  be  benefitted  by  protective  duties;  they 
demanded  them  and  at  time 3 secured  them.  There  were  more  Northern  enterprises 
and  projects  which  were  felt  to  be  entitled  to  government  aid;  insistent  demands 
were  made  for  such  aid  and  frequently  secured.  More  Federal  officials  were 
required  in  the  North;  supplies  and  equipment  for  government  needs  could  be  more 
readily  secured  there;  consequently  most  of  the  governmental  expenditures  were 
made  in  the  North,  There  was  justice  in  the  Southern  complaint  that  the  South 
paid  more  in  the  form  of  taxes  than  she  received  back  in  disbursements,  and  that 
the  difference  was  a drain  upon  Southern  resources.  But  in  those  days  Federal 
taxes  were  comparatively  light, and  governmental  expenditures  comparatively 
smal^j  the  operation  of  the  Federal  government  would  seem  to  have  been  of  3mall 
censeuqance  in  determining  the  economic  condition  of  sections  as  compared  with 
other  great  economic  forces  of  the  time. 

What  3hall  be  said  of  the  remedies  for  Southern  "decline"?  Much  more 
might  haire  been  accomplished  than  was  had  the  plans  advanced  by  the  progressives 
been  earnestly  and  intelligently  carried  out  either  by  the  state  and  local 
governments  or  the  cooperative  efforts  of  private  citizens;  for  example, 
commercial  education,  bett embanking  laws,  improved  methods  of  marketing  cotton. 
But  the  remedies  lay  chiefly  in  time  and  the  natural  order  of  events.  Greater 
density  of  population  would  have  come.  Slavery  or  no  slavery,  capital  would 
have  come  in  or  would  have  accumulated  out  of  the  profits  of  agriculture,  White 
labor  mu3t  have  been  put  to  work,  first,  perhaps,  in  cotton  culture  and  later  in 
other  industries.  Cotton  manufactures  would  have  sprung  up  as  they  threatened 
to  do  in  the  forties  and  as  they  did  a few  decades  later.  The  Pacific  railroad 
wuld  ha^e  been  built.  The  quantity  of  commerce  would  have  become  great  enough 
to  warrant  direct  trade  with  Hurope.  The  development  of  the  section*s  forest 


. 

312 


and  mineral  resources  would  have  begun.  But  the  South  did  not  wait  for  time 
and  the  natural  order  of  events.  It  is  perhaps  idle  to  speculate  in  regard  to 
the  economic  future  of  the  Sbutherh  states  if  they  could  have,  become  an 
independent  confederacy  without  wars  threatening  national  integrity,  .here 
is  little  liklihood  that  secession  wouldhave  proved  the  magic  proponents 
prophesied;  aboutlthe  same  progress  would  have  been  made  as  in  the  Union,  Slavery 
would  have  endured  somewhat  longer.  The  foreign  slave  trade  would  not  have  been 
reopened.  Some  industries  might  have  been  art  if  icially  stimulated,  * measure 
of  financial  independence,  as  far  as  the  actual  transaction  of  business  was 
cnncerned,  would  probably  have  been  secured.  But'jthe  economic  advantages  would 
have  been  off-set  by  the  disadvantages  of  increased  C03t  of  government  and  the 
barriers  imposed  upon  trade  with  states  of  the  Union,  with  whicn  urade 
formerly  been  free. 

The  conditions  were  not  right  and  the  means  not  present  for  the  formation 
among  the  Southern  people  of  a thorough  understanding  of  xhe  greao  economic 
problems  of  the  section.  The  pres 3 was  poor  and  almost  wholly  partisan, 

DeBow’s  Review,  after  its  founding  in  1346,  contained  almost  everything  of 
value  written  on  the  economic  conditions  and  problems  of  the  South,  Tne 
volumes  were  of  very  unequal  merit;  many  of  the  articles  were  flimsy  in 
character.  De3ow  himself,  while  a brilliant  journalist,  possessed  of  a vast 
fund  of  information,  and  a man  of  prodigious  industry,  was  neither  a man  o<- 
broad  grasp  nor  an  impartial  seeker  after  truth.  Few  books  o v^iae  ..n 
economic  subjects  were  published.  Much  as  was  said  and  written  on  tne  in- 

quest-ion, for  example,  no  considerable  study  of  the|ec  onomics  of  slavery  of  any 
value  was  produced.  Too  much  that  was  written  was  baded  upon  insufficient  infor- 
mation and  was  speculative  in  character,  A few  men  apparently  did  the  thinking 
on  economic  questions  for  the  vocal  part  of  the  population.  The  reading  public 
was  small,  probably  the  thinking  public  also.  The  platform  and  the  stump  ecu,: 


. 


and  did  contribute  little  to  an  understanding  of  economic  problems.  The 
schools  nad  not  yet  become  centers  of  study  and  research  along  economic  line^, 
especially.  Hen  of  experience  in  large  business  affairs  were  comparatively  too 
few,  and  seem  to  have  written  and  talked  too  little.  Much  of  tne  population 
was  volatile  and  excitable.  Tne  bitter  3ectiona.>.  quarrel  over  slavery  ..'as 
noijc onducive  to  calm  thinking*  After  all,  however,  the  remarkable  thing  is  not 
how  much  intelligent  consideration  the  Southern  people  gave  to  their  economic 
conditionsjand  problems  but  how  little.  Northerners  and  Englishmen  contributed 
something  to  an  understanding  of  these  matters,  but  too  much  that  they  wrote  was 
unsympathetic  in  c ha  racier. x 

And  the  Northern  people  as  a whole  did  noijhave  that  sympathetic  under- 
standing of  the  complex  social  and  economic  problem  o Sfthe  South  which  was 
requisite  to  peace  and  amity  between  the  sections  and  the  eventual  solution  of 
tho$e  problems*  The  problems  and  interests  of  the  sections  were  so  different 
that  serious  conflict  could  be  avoided  only  by  mutual  understand ing,  sympathy* 
and  forbearance.  The  sections  drifted  into  a war  which  was  not  an  "inevitable 
c onflict « " 

1*  Notable  for  either  breadth  of  understanding  or  sympathetic  treatment  or 
both  were : Kettell,  3c  ul  her n *7 gal th  ?nd  "‘Cr  »" - n -ns : Olmsteu,  A,  j j 

in  the  Seaboard  Slave  Spates •.  A J our  ne j ^ nr.  - ugn  T exas ; A J ourney  in  ^ne. 
Country;  Weston,  The  i?r purges  o f Slaver.,  in  me  bnot  - ~ . N.u  ''•e. 

North  America  'E  nglish ) . 


B IBLIO  GRAPH  Y 


Public  Documents;  Federal  and  Confederate 
The  Sixth  Census  of  tie  United  States:  1040. 

The  Seventh  Census  of  the  United  States:  1850. 

De  Bow,  J.D.B.  Statistical  View  of  the  United  States  ...  Being  a Compendium  of 
the  Seventh  Census  ....  Washington,  1854. 

Kennedy,  Jos.  C.  G.  Preliminary  Report  on  the  Eighth  Census. .. .Washington,  1862. 
The  Eighth  Census:  1860. 

The  Congressional  Globe,  26th  Congress  to  the  36th  Congress. 

Congressional  Documents,  26th  Congress  to  the  36th  Congress. 

Commissioner  of  Patents.  Annual  Reports,  Agriculture,  1845-61. 

Register  of  the  Treasury.  Reports  ...  on  the  Commerce  and  navigation  of  the 

United  States  ...  , vols.  for  1831-36;  1836-43;  1845-47; 1849-61. 
Statutes  at  Large,  26th  Congress  to  the  36th  Congress. 

Mathews,  James  M.  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  tie  Provisional  Government  of  the 

Confederate  States  of  America,  from  the  Institution  of  the  govern 
ment,  Feb.  8,  1861,  to  its  Termination,  Feb.  18,  1862.... 
Richmond,  1864. 

Journal  of  tie  Provisional  Congress  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America  (U.S. 
Senate  Documents,  58  Cong.,  2 Sess.,  Ho.  234,  Vol.  I). 

Public  Documents:  State  and  Local 

Journal,  Acts,  and  Proceedings  of  a General  Convention  of  the  State  of  Virginia, 
Assembled  at  Richmond  ...  1350  ...  . Richmond,  1850. 


■ 


315 


Journal  of  tlie  Acts  and.  Proceedings  of  a General  Convention  ox  the  - -ate  o_ 
Virginia,  Assembled  at  Riciimond  •••  ISol.  j.chmond,  — - --x. 

Virginia  House  Journal  and  Documents,  181-0-61.  chrnond. 

Virginia  Senate  Journal  and  Documents,  1840-6.-,  jchmond. 

Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  (published  annually  and  biennually)  . 
Ricimond. 

Tlie  Convention  of  tie  People  of  Horth  Carolina,  Held  on  tlie  20th  Day  of  -ay, 

A.D. , 1861.  Raleigh,  186x.. 

Journal  of  the  State  Convention  of  South  Carolina,  together  with  the  Resolutions 
and  Ordinances.  Columbia,  1852. 

Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  People  of  ~outh  Carolina,  ^-eld  in  x^oC,  l-*"-!, 
and  1862,  together  with  Ordinances,  Reports,  and  Resolutions, 
etc.  Columbia,  1862. 

Report  of  the  Commissioners  appointed  at  the  Last  session  of  uhe  General  ^-sem- 
bly  to  inquire  into  the  feasibility  of  improving  the  channel  of 
the  3ar  of  Charleston Columbia,  1852. 

Report;  Containing  a Review  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  City  Authorities  from  the 
4th  September,  1837,  to  the  1st  August,  1338  ....  By  Henry  L. 
Pinclcney,  Mayor.  Charleston,  1838. 

A Digest  of  the  Ordinances  of  the  City  of  Charleston  ...  1783  to  ••  --  - -0 

which  are  annexed  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  which  relate 
exclusively  to  the  City  of  Charleston. 

Ordinances  of  the  City  of  Charleston  from  •••  Aug.  1844,  to  ...Sept*  Iu51;  and 
the  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  relating  to  the  City  of 


Charleston.  1854. 


j; 


316 


Ordinances  of  the  City  of  Charleston  ...  1854,  to  the  1st  December,  1859,  and 
tiie  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  ....  compiled  by  John  R. 

Horsey  ...  1859. 

Journal  of  the  Georgia  Convention  held  in  Hi  lie  dee  vi  lie  in  1850.  Hilledgeville, 
1850. 

Journal  of  the  Public  and  Secret  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  the  People 

of  'Georgia,  held  in  Hilledgeville  and  Savannah  in  1861,  togeth- 
er with  the  Ordinances  adopted.  Hilledgeville,  1861. 

Hotchkiss,  W.  A.  Codification  of  the  Statute  Law  of  Georgia.  Savannah,  1845. 
Candler,  A.  D.  The  Confederate  Records  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  Vol.s  I - III. 
Atlanta,  1909-10. 

Ordinances  and  Consitution  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  with  the  constitution  of  the 
Provisional  Government  and  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America. 
Montgomery,  1861. 

Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Alabama,  1843-1860  (published  annually  and  bi- 
ennially) . Tuscaloosa  and  Montgomery. 

The  Code  of  Ordinances  of  the  City  of  Mobile,  with  the  Charter  and  an  Appendix..- 
3y  the  Hen.  Alexander  McKinstry.  1359. 

Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  the  Act  callingthe 
same;  ...(1850).  Jackson,  1851. 

Journal  oi  the  State  Convention  and  Ordinances  and  Resolutions  adopted  in 
January,  1861  ....  Jackson,  1861. 

Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Convention  of  Louisiana  which  assembled  at  ... 

Hew  Orleans,  January  14,  1845.  Hew  Orleans,  1845. 

Official  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  Louisiana. 
Hew  Orleans,  1861. 


* I * 


... 


. 


♦ 


■ vis ' h| 


% t 


. 


- * • 4 i 


317 


Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  Louisiana,  1840-61  (published  annually)  .l  ew  Orleans. 
Digest  of  the  Ordinances  and  Resolutions  of  the  Second  Municipality  and  of  the 

General  Council  of  the  City  of  Hew  Orleans,  applicable  thereto, 
Jan.  1848.  By  F.  R.  Southmayd,  Sec’y. 

, Texas  Library  and  Historical  Corrmiasion.  Journal  of  the  Secession  Convention 

of  Texas,  1861.  Austin,  1912. 

Magazines  and  Periodicals 

The  American  Whig  Review.  16  vols.  Hew  York,  1845-52. 

DeBow's  Commercial  Review  of  the  South  and  West.  38  vols.  Hew  Orleans ,1846-70 . 
Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine  and  Commercial  Review,  63  vols.  Hew  York, 1839-70. 

Hiles’  Weekly  (national)  Register  (Vols.  L-LXXV) . 75  vols.  Baltimore  and  Phila- 

delphia, 1811-49. 

The  Southern  Literary  Messenger,  zJa  vols.  Richmond,  1834-64. 

The  Southern  Quarterly  Review.  16  vols.  Charleston,  Jan.  1842  to  Jan.  1850. 

The  United  States  Magazine  and  Democratic  Review.  43  vols.  Washington, 1838-59 • 

The  Western  Journal  and  Vivilisn.  13  vols.  St.  Louis,  1848-55. 

llewswaoers 

Hew  York  Herald,  Jan.-Je.,  1854;  Jul. -Dec. ,1857;  Jan. -Je. ,1859;  Jul. ,1860-Je.  1361. 
Hew  York  Times,  1861. 

Baltimore  Sun,  July,  1852  - Je.,  1853. 

Daily  Rational  Intelligence  (Washington) , 1844-46;  1850-51;  1856;1860-61. 

Richmond  Daily  Whig,  1851. 

Richmond  Daily  Enquirer ,138,  1856,  1857. 

Richmond  Semi -Weekly  inquirer,  1850,  1852-1854. 

Raleigh  Register,  1839-1840. 


- . . 


» r. 


f 


9 


f 


r » 

f 


i 


C 


v 


» 


t 


318 


Charleston  (S.C.)  Daily  Courier,  July,  1837, -Je.,  1839;  1854-1856. 

Charleston  Mercury,  July- Dec.,  1838;  1858-1859. 

Savannah.  Daily  Republican,  Jan.-Je.,  1837;  Jan.— Je.,  1838;  Jan.-Je., 1 o ; July- 
Dec.,  1356. 

Montgomery  Daily  Confederation,  1858,  1859. 

Hew  Orleans  Picayune,  Jan.-Je.,  1858. 

Hew  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  Jan.-Je.,  1855. 

Hew  Orleans  Delta,  1858. 

Hew  Orleans  True  Delta,  1859 . 

Memphis  Daily  Eagle,  1845. 

Memphis  Eagle  and  Enquirer,  1853. 

Memphis  Daily  Appeal,  Jan.-Je.,  1853. 

Republican  Banner  and  Mashville  .dug,  July,  1856  - Dec.,  1857. 

Pamphlets 

lallory,  Francis.  Report  on  the  Commercial  Condition  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Vir- 
ginia. Presented  to  the  Commercial  Convention  convened  in  Richmonc 
June  13,  1838.  Petersburg,  1838. 

Convention  of  Merchants  and  Others  for  the  Promotion  of  Direct  Trade,  1839.  Charles- 
ton, 1839. 

Diskson,  Samuel  H,  Address  delivered  at  the  Opening  of  the  Hew  Edifice  of  the 
Charleston  Apprentices’  Library  Society,  January  13,  1841  ... 
Charleston,  1841. 

Sotithern  State  Rights,  Free  Trade  and  Anti-abolition  Tract  Ho.  1.  (Includes  Letter 
of  Langdon  Cheves,  Jackson’s  Letter  on  Texas,  J.  Adams’s  Disun- 
ion Letter,  etc.).  Charleston,  1844. 

A Reply  to  the  Letter  of  the  Hon.  Langdon  Cheves.  By  a Southerner.  Charleston, 


1844  (?) 


9 


' * 


? * 


' 


• •• 

t 


9 


« > 


h ' e 


« 


• • 


o ’ 1 : : 


. .t 


0> 


r 


<• 


^ 1 t. 


f 


? 


r 


•) 


! 


' 


li  ■ 


* 


' 


319 


Gregg,  William.  Essays  on  Domestic  Industry;  or  an  Inquiry  into  the  Expediency  of 
Establishing  Cotton  Manufactures  in  South  Carolina.  Charleston, 

1845. 

Inauiry  into  the  Propriety  of  Granting  Charters  to  the  .lanufact- 

urers  of  South  Carolina.  By  One  of  the  People.  Charleston,  1845. 

Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Southwestern  Convention.  ...  Memphis.  .12th  Novem- 
ber, 1845. 

Hammond,  Janes  H.  Letters  on  Southern  Slavery;  Addressed  to  Thomas  Clarkson,  the 
English  Abolitionist.  Charleston,  1848  (written  in  1845). 

Abbott,  Lawrence.  Letters  from  the  Hon.  ...  to  the  Hon.  William  C.  Hive3  of 
Virginia.  Boston,  1846. 

A Voice  from  the  South:  Comprising  Letters  from  Georgia  to  Massacnusetts,  and  m 

the  Southern  States.  Baltimore,  1847. 

Fisher,  Ellwood.  Lecture  on  the  ITc-rth  and  the  South;  delivered  before  the  Yeung 
Hen’s  Mercantile  Library  Association  of  Cincinnati,  Chic,  January 
16,  1849.  Cincinnati,  1849. 

Proceedings  of  the  national  Railroad  Convention,  which  assembled  m the  City  oi 
St#  Louis,  on  tie  fifteenth  day  of  October,  1849.....  St.  nouis, 

1849. 

Minutes  and  Proceedings  of  the  Memphis  Convention  assembled  October  23,  1349. 
Memphis,  1849. 

national  Plan  of  an  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Railroad  and  Remarks  of  Albert  Pike  made 
thereon,  at  Memphis,  Hovsmber,  1849.  Memphis,  1849. 

Janes,  diaries  T.  Practical  Hints  on  the  Comparative  Cost  and  Productiveness  of  th 
Culture  of  Cotton,  and  the  Cost  and  Productiveness  of  its  Manufacture 
Addressed  to  the  Cotton  Planters  and  Capitalists  of  the  South. 1849 

Smith,  Hamilton.  Cannelton,  Perry  County,  Indiana,  at  the  Intersection  of  the  East- 
ern Margin  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Basin#  ...  Louisville,  1850. 


<• 


r 


* 1 


t 


« 


f 


; 


* 


i 


G - 


"i  ‘ / rt-  ■ ' £ ' ' t 

. 1 i . . . ov  ■■  »>  ’■  i 

. » 

y.  ; ■ in  , • ' ‘ ■"  ••  ■ 

■ ■ : ; ■ 

, r ' ,,  ' ',/•  f 

...  . 


• • • • 


320 

Proceedings  of  the  Convention  in  Favor  of  a National  Road  to  the  Pacific  Ocean 

Philadelphia,  April  1st,  2nd  and  3rd,  1850.  Philadelphia,  ~..o. 
Trescott,  William  H*  The  Position  and  Course  of  the  Couth.  Charleston, 

Townsend,  John#  The  Southern  States;  Their  Present  Peril  and  their  Certain  * mc-dy. 

, 1850 . 

Bryan,  Edward  3.  The  Rightful  Remedy.  Addressed  to  the  Slaveholders  of  the  South. 
Charleston,  1850. 

Garnett,  Liiscoe  R.  H.  Tm  Union,  Past  and  Future:  How  It  Works  and  How  to  ^ave  n 

Washington,  1850. 

Derby,  E.  H.  Reality  versus  Fiction;  a Review  of  a Pamphlet  ...  Entitled,  Tiie 
Union,  Past  said  Future....".  Boston,  1850. 

Grayson,  W.  J.  Letter  to  Ms  Excellency,  Whitemarsh  3.  Saabrook,  Governor  of  ... 

South  Carolina,  on  the  Dissolution  of  the  Union.  Charleston,18u0. 
(A.  G.  MaGrath) . A Letter  of  Southern  Wrongs  and  Southern  Remedies;  addressed  to 
the  Hon.  W.  J.  Grayson,  in  reply  to  his  Letter  to  the  Governor  of 
South  Carolina.  ...  Charleston,  1850. 

Grieves,  Langdoru  Speech  of  ...  Delivered  before  the  ....  Nashville  Convention,  ... 
November  15,  1850.  Columbia,  1850. 

Southern  Rights  Association.  Barnwell  District,  South  Carolina,  Ifeeting,  danu^ry 

6,  1851.  1851. 

Proceedings  of  the  Ileeting  of  Delegates  from  the  Southern  Rights  Associations  of 
South  Carolina,  held  at  Charleston,  Nay,  1851.  Columbia,  1851. 
Proceedings  of  the  Great  Southern  Co-operation  and  anti— recession  ileeting  , **6x0.  in 
Charleston,  September  23,  1851.  Charleston,  1851. 

Barnard,  F.  A.  P.  Oration  delivered  before  the  Citizens  of  Tuscaloosa,  Alabama, 

July  4,  1851.  Tuscaloosa,  1851. 

Elliott,  Hon.  William,  The  Letters  of  Agricola.  Greenville,  S.  C.,  1852.  (First 
Published,  1851.) 


Y 


t 


0 


* 


? 


* 


. 


r 


. 


r 


i t • 


t 


• v'  . v. 


0 “ 


f u 


* 


jp* 


* 


! 


< 


321 


Address  to  the  People  of  the  Southern  and  Western  States,  and  more  particularly  to 
these  of  La.,  Sex.,  Miss.,  Ala.,  Tenn.,  Aik.,  Ky.,  and  Ho.  (By  a 
committee,  in  "behalf  of  the  Hew  Orleans  Railroad  Convention,  1852)  . 
Hew  Orleans,  1851. 

Proceedings  of  the  Southern  and  .e stern  Commercial  Convention,  at  Memphis,  -enneesee 
in  June,  1853  ....  Memphis,  1854. 

Graniteville  Manufacturing  Coixpany.  Report  of  the  President  and  Treasurer  for  the 
Year  1854.  (William  Gregg,  Pres.).  Charleston,  1855. 

(Carey,  Henry  C.) . The  Worth  and  the  South  (Reprinted  from  the  Hew  York  Tribune).. 
1854. 

Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Commercial  Convention  of  the  Southern  and  Western 

States,  ....  Charleston  ...  commencing  ...  10th  April,  1854. 

Charleston,  1854. 

I 

Two  Tracts  for  the  Times,  the  one  entitled,  "uQgro  Slavery  Ho  Evil,'1  by  3.  P. 

Stringfellow,  of  Missouri;  the  other,  "An  Answer  to  the  Inquiry, 

Is  it  expedient  to  Introduce  Slavery  into  Kansas?"  by  D.  R.  Goodloe, 
of  Worth  Carolina,  3oston,  1855. 

Jest  on,  George  H.  The  Poor  Whites  of  the  South.  Washington,  1856. 

Burwell,  William.  True  Policy  of  the  South,  with  Suggestions  for  the  Settlement  of 
our  Sectional  Differences.  Washington,  1856. 

Official  Report  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention 
assembled  at  Knoxville,  Tennessee,  August  10,  1857.  Knoxville, 
1857.  (An  appendix  contains  the  proceedings  of  the  session  at 
Savannah,  Dec.  1856.) 

health,  Resources  and  Hopes  of  Virginia.  (Prom  the  Daily  Southern  Argus.).  Norfolk, 
1857. 

fielder,  Herbert.  The  Disunionist:  a Brief  Treatise  upon  the  Rvils  of  the  Union.... 

and  the  Propriety  of  a Separation  and  the  Formation  of  a Southern 


3 


? • 


« * 


. 


* 


• r ' 


* 


' - . 

• f 

3i 

, « * « 


0 


322 


United  States.  , 1857. 

Hughes,  Henry.  Report... read  "before  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention  at  Vicks- 
burg, llay  10,  1859,  on  the  subject  of  the  African  Apprentice  Sys- 
tem. Vicksburg,  1859. 

Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Merchants ’ and  Mechanics'  Exchange  of  Norfolk,  Virginia, 
January,  1860. 

Townsend,  John.  The  South  Alone  Should  Govern  the  South  ....  Charleston,  1860. 

- - . The  Doom  of  Slavery  in  the  Union:  Its  Safety  out  of  It.  (2d  Ed.) 

Charleston,  1860. 

Robb,  Janes.  A Southern  Confederacy.  Letters  by  ...,  Late  a Citizen  of  New 

Orleans  to  an  American  in  Paris  and  the  Honorable  Alexander  H. 
Stephens  of  Georgia. 

Thornwell,  J.  H.  The  State  of  the  Country:  An  Article  republished  from  the 

Southern  Presbyterian  Review.  New  York,  1861, 

Tracts  for  the  Tines  in  Relation  to  African  Labor,  the  Future  Supply  of  Cotton  and 
Popular  Government  in  North  America.  (N.  H.  Herald  reprint) . 1861. 
Atkinson,  Edward.  Cheap  Cotton  by  Free  Labor,  by  a Cotton  Manufacturer.  Boston, 186] 
Colwell,  Stephen.  The  Five  Cotton  States  and  New  York;  or  Remarks  upon  the  Social 

and  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Southern  Political  Crisis.  Philadelphia 
1861. 

Lord.  Daniel.  The  Effect  of  Secession  upon  the  Commercial  Relations  between  the 
North  and  South  and  upon  each  Section  (New  York  T ime s rerpint  i , 
1861. 

Powell,  Samuel.  Notes  on  ’’Southern  Health,  and  Northern  Profits.”  Philadelphia, 

1861. 

Gollins,  William  H.  Third  address  to  the  People  of  Maryland,  by*.,  of  Baltimore. 
Baltimore,  1861. 


*'  ' . , 


. 


■ i .. 


; 


, 


... 


. 


•» 


1 


»■ 


■ ' V: 


;>• 


3 £3 


Kennedy,  John  P.  The  Border  States,  their  Power  and  Duty  in  the  Present  Disordered 
Conditions  of  the  Country.  — , 1860. 

South  Carolina,  Disunion  and  a Mississippi  Talley  Confederacy  (by  a Kentuckian)  • 

, 1861. 

Segar,  Joseph.  Letter  ...  to  a Friend  in  Virginia  in  Vindication  of  his  Course  in 
Declining  to  follow  his  State  into  Secession.  Washington,  1862. 

Oven,  Robert  Dale.  The  Future  of  the  Horthwest  in  Convention  .vith  the  Scheme  of 
Reconstruction  without  Few  England.  Philadelphia,  1863. 

Irenholra,  . L.  The  Centennial  address  Before  the  Charleston  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
11th  February,  1884.  ...  Charleston,  1884. 

Published  Diaries,  Speeches,  and  Contemporary  Correspondence. 

Brown,  Aaron  V.  Speeches,  Congressional  and  Political,  and  other  Writings. 
Hashville,  1854. 

ialhoun,  John  C.  Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun.  Edited  by  J.  F.  Jameson 
(Auer.  Mist.  Assoc.,  Report . 1899,  Vol.  IIjl»  Washington,  1900. 

— - Works  of  John  C.  Calhoun.  Editied  by  R.  K.  Crall^i  6 vols. 

Hew  York,  1854-55. 

Japers,  Henry  D.  Life  and  Times  of  C*  G.  Memminger . Richmond,  1893. 

Jhittenden,  L.  E.  A Report  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  in  the  Secret  Sessions 
of  the  Conference  Convention,  for  proposing  Amendment s to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  Held  at  Washington,  D.  C.  in 
February,  A.  D.  1861.  Hew  York,  1864. 

ilaiborne,  J.  F.  H.  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  A.  yuitman.  2 vols.  Hew  York, 
1860. 

Sleveland,  II.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  in  Public  and  Private.  Philadelphia,  1866. 

Clingnan,  Thomas  L.  Speecl^es  and  Writings.  Raleigh,  1878. 


- 


5 


?,  .1  *) 


* 


* ■ 


324 


Coleman,  Sirs,  Chapman.  The  Life  of  John  J.  Crittenden,  with  Selections  from  his 
Correspondence  and  Speeches.  2 vols.  Philadelphia,  1871. 

Colton,  Calvin,  Life,  Correspondence  and  Speeches  of  henry  Clay.  6 vols. 

Hew  York,  1854. 

Fielder,  H.  Life,  Times,  and  Speeches  of  Joseph  E.  Brown.  Springfield,  Class.,  1883 
Hamilton,  J,  G.  do  R.  Tie  Correspondence  of  Johathan  7orth.  2 vols,  Raleigh*  1909. 
— The  Papers  of  Thomas  Ruffin;  Collected  and  Edited  "by 2 vols 


Raleigh,  1918. 

Hill,  Benjamin  H.,  jr.  Senator  Benjamin  H.  Hill  of  Georgia,  His  Life,  Speeches  and 
Addresses.  Atlanta,  1891. 

Hilliard,  Henry  ",  Speeches  and  Addresses.  Hew  York,  1855, 

Hunter,  Robert  II.  T.  Correspondence  of  ....  (American  Hist,  Assoc.,  Report,  1910, 
Vol.  II).  Edited  by  C.  H.  Ambler.  Washington,  1913. 

Johnston,  R,  II.,  and  Browne,  H.  Life  of  Alexander  Stephens,  Philadelphia, 
1878. 


Jones,  John  B.  A Rebel  7/ar  Clerk’s  Diary  at  the  Confederate  States’  Capital. 

2 vols.  Philadelphia,  1866. 

Mason,  Virginia.  The  Public  Life  and  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  James  M.  Mason 
with  Some  Personal  History  by  ...  his  daughter.  Roanoke,  "fe.,1906. 

Phillips,  U,  B.,  ed.  The  Correspondence  of  Robert  Toombs,  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
and  Howell  Cobb,  (Amer  • Hist.  Assoc.  Rapt.,  1911,  Vol.  II.) 
'.7ashington,  1913. 

Yuaife,  II.  LI.  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk.  4 vols.  Chicago , 1910. 

Seward,  Villiam  H,  An  Autobiography  from  1801-1834;  with  a Memoir  of  hie  Life,  be 
1832-1872,  by  Frederick  • Seward.  3 vols.  Hew  York,  1891. 

Smith,  William  R.  The  History  and  Debates  of  the  Convention  of  the  People  of 

Alabama,  begun  and  held  in  the  City  of  Montgomery,  on  the  seventh 
day  of  January,  1861  ...  Montgomery,  1861. 


• • • 


e 


4 * ? 


f 


t 


o * f 


% 


* 


» « 


J 


«> 


e 


p 


r 


t 


325 


Tyler,  Lyon  G.  Letters  and  Tines  of  the  Tylers.  3 vols.  Richmond  and  Williams- 
burg, 1834-1896. 

'l 

Unpub li shed  Correspondence,  Diaries , and  -t- rs » 

William  Burwell  'Papers. 

J.  J.  Crittenden  Papers. 

J.  H . Hammond  Pax^ers. 

M.  F.  Maury  Papers. 

Edmund  Baffin’s  Diary. 

Whitemarsh  3.  Seabrock  Papers. 

Memoirs  and  Reminiscences 

Benton,  Thoms  H.  Thirty  Years’  View,  or  a History  of  the  Workings  cf  the 

American  Government  for  Thirty  Years,  from  1820  to  1850.  2 vols. 
ITew  York,  1854. 

Botts,  John  LI.  The  Great  Rebellion:  Its  Secret  History,  Pise,  Progress,  and  Dis- 
astrous Failure.  Hew  York,  1866. 

Rrotvnlow,  W.  G.  Sketches  of  the  Rise,  Progress  and  Decline  of  Secession,  with,  a 
narrative  of  Personal  Adventures  among  the  Rebels.  Philadelphia, 
1862. 

Buchanan,  James.  Hr.  Buchanan  * s Administration  on  the  Eve  of  the  Rebellion. 

ITew  York,  1866. 

Ones  nut,  Ha ry  3.  A Diary  from  Dixie  ....  ITew  York,  1916. 

Claiborne,  J.  F.  H.  Mississippi  as  a Province,  Territory,  and  State.  Jackson, 1880, 
Foote,  Henry  3.  Gasket  of  Reminiscences.  Washingt  n,  1874. 

1.  Preserved  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 


3*  ■ : . ' ' 


’ 


J 


J.  : - v 


• ? 


, 


. •£  , •> 


326 


ar  of  tiie  Rebellion}  or,  Icylla  and  Charybdis.  IT ew  York,  1866. 

Garrett,  7/illianu  Reminiscences  of  Public  lien  in  Alabama  for  Thirty  Years* 
Atlanta,  1872* 

Green,  Duff*  Pacts  and  Suggestions,  Biographical,  Historical,  Financial  and 
Political,  Hew  York,  1866. 

Hilliard,  Henry  . . Politics  and  Pen  Pictures  at  Home  and  Abroad.  Hew  York,  1892. 

Holden,  I*  Y /.  Memoirs  of  ....  Edited  by  I'm*  H.  3oyd.  (John  Lawson  Monographs  of 
the  Trinity  Co-lege  Hist.  3oc.)  Durham,  IT.  C.,  1911. 

Perry,  B.  P.  Biographical  Sketches  of  Bminent  American  Statesmen,  with  Speeches, 
Addresses  and  Letters.  Philadelphia,  1387. 

Pryor,  Mrs.  Roger  A.  Reminiscences  cf  Peace  and  Mar.  Hew  York,  1905. 

Sargent,  ITathan.  Public  Men  and  Hvent s from  the  Commencement  of  Mr.  Monroe's 

Administration,  in  1817,  to  the  close  cf  Mr.  Fillmore’s  Adminis- 
tration, in  1853,  Yol.  II.  2 vols.  Philadelphia,  1875. 

Books  cf  Travel  or  Description,  3 i at 1st leal  'forks,  and  Directories. 

Bancroft,  Joseph.  Census  of  the  City  of  Savannah,  together  with  Statistics  relat- 
ing to  the  Trade,  Commerce,  Mechanical  Arts,  and  Health  of  the 
same;  ...  2d.  ed.  Savannah,  1848. 

Buckingham,  J.  3.  The  Slave  States  of  America.  2 vols.  London,  1842. 

Campbell,  John  P.  The  Southern  Business  Directory  and  General  Commercial  Adver- 
tiser. ...  Charleston,  1854. 

Chase.  Henry  and  Sanborn,  C.  H.  The  Perth  and  the  South:  A Statistical  View  of 
the  Condition  of  the  Free  and  the  Slave  States.  Hew  York,  1856. 

Gist,  Charles.  Sketches  and  Statistics  of  Cincinnati  in  1851.  Cincinnati,  1851. 

- , Sketches  and  Statistics  of  Cincinnati  in  1859.  Cincinnati,  1869. 

Dawson,  J.  L.  and  DeSaussure,  H.  W.  Census  of  the  City  of  Charleston,  South  Carol- 


I 


f 


. 


* f * 


327 


ina  for  the  year  18-1-8;  Charleston,  1849. 

Fe  at  he  r s t onfcau  gh , Gerog©  .7*  2xc*arsion  through  the  Slave  States,  hew  Pork,  1C44. 
Forrest,  Y/illiam  S.  The  ITorfolk  Directory,  for  1851-2  ...  ITorfolk,  1852. 
hemble,  Mrs.  Frances  Anne.  Journal  of  a Residence  on  a Georgia  Plantation  in 
1838-39.  hew  York,  1863. 

Lyell,  Sir  diaries.  A Second  Visit  to  the  United  States.  2 vols.  London,  1349. 
Llackay , Charles.  Life  and  Liberty  in  America;  or  Sketches  of  a nour  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada  in  1857-8.  hew  York,  1859. 

Pitkin,  Timothy.  Statistical  View  of  the  Commerce  of  the  United  States.  2d  ed. 
hew  York,  1817. 

Robertson,  Jaaes.  A Few  Months  in  America  ...  London,  1865. 

Russell,  Robert,  horth  America;  Its  Agriculture  and  Climate,  Mdinburgh.,1858 . 

Russell,  Villi am  H.  Pictures  of  Southern  Life,  Social,  Political,  and  Military. 
ITew  York,  1861. 

Stirling,  James.  Letters  from  the  Slave  States.  London,  1857. 

Tucker,  George.  Progress  of  the  United  States  in  health  and  Population,  hew  York, 
1843. 

White,  George.  Statistics  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  including  an  account  of  its 
natural.  Civil  and  Rcclesiastical  History Savannah,  1849. 

Contemporary  Monographs , Special  Porks , and  Books  of  a.  Controversial 

Character 

Adams,  Rev.  ITehemiah.  A Southside  View  of  Slavery,  or  Three  Months  at  t lie  South. 
Bosto  1 f 1854. 

Batchelder,  3.  Introduction  and  "larly  Progress  of  Cotton  Manufacture  in  the  United 
States.  Boiten  » 1863. 

Bledsoe,  Arthur  Taylor.  An  Masay  on  Liberty  and  Slavery.  Philadelphia,  1856. 


* . • , 

t ' 1 

- •-  ■ 


— . 


, . me- 

, . 

. 

« m * l 

. <*o  ( 

r 

« i * ' « « • $ • ' - *■  • '•  ' 

9 . 0 . •• 


. ..  ■ 


, 


v "V *-! 


f ” * : ■ c *: ; . : 

t> 

* ’ ov  t.  , . V J -■ 


? •-/ 


; • • J- 


. 

. * c , ■ ; ; 


# 'i  ■> 


. 


; m ...  _ 


• e 


. . 


. v ' 


328 


Cairnes,  J.  2.  The  Slave  Power.  Its  Character,  Career,  and  Probable  Desigi. 

2d.  ed.  London,  1863. 

Carpenter,  3.  D.  The  Logic  of  History.  Uadi  son,  .Vis.  1364. 

Christy,  David.  Cotton  is  King,  and  its  Delation  to  Agriculture,  Hanufactur es,and 
Commerce,  2d.  ed.  Hew  York,  1856. 

Cobb,  T.  R.  R.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Law  of  Hegro  Slavery.  Philadelphia,  1858. 

Davis,  Jefferson.  Rise  and  Pall  of  the  Confederate  Government.  2 vols.  Hew  Pork, 
1881. 

Elliott,  E.  IT*,  ed.  Cotton  is  Ring  and  Pro-Slavery  Arguments,  Comprising  the 

Writings  of  Hammond,  Harper,  Christy,  Stringfellow,  Hodge,  Pledsoe, 
and  Cartwright....  Augusta,  1860.  (These  writings  can  he  found 
separately)  . 

Fitzhu^i,  George.  Cannibals  All,  or  Slaves  without  Masters.  Richmond,  1856. 

Sociology  for  the  South,  or  the  Failure  of  Free  Society.  Richmond, 

1854. 

Gcodloe,  Daniel  R*  An  Inquiry  into  the  Causes  which  have  Retarded  the  Accumulation 
of  Health  and  Increase  of  Population  in  the  Southern  States  ... 
Washington,  1846. 

Goodell,  William.  Slavery  and  Anti -slavery;  a History  of  the  Great  Struggle  in 
both  Hemispheres,  ...  Hew  York,  1852, 

Greeley,  Horace.  The  American  Conflict.  2 vols*  Hartford,  1864* 

Harper,  William*  The  Pro-Slavery  P-rgiment  as  Maintained  by  Host  Distinguished 

Writers  of  the  Southern  States,  containing  the  several  essays  on 
the  subject,  of  Chancellor  Harper,  Dr.  Simms , and  Professor  Dew. 
Philadelphia,  1852. 

Helper,  Hinton,  R.  The  Impending  Crisis  of  the  South,  How  to  meet  It.  Hew  York, 1857 

Hildreth,  Richard.  Despotism  in  America*  Bast  oti  J 1854. 

Hodgson,  Joseph.  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy;  or,  the  Times  of  Troup,  ^uitman, 


329 


and  Yancey.  I'tobile,  1876. 

Kettell,  Thomas  Prentice.  Southern  health  and  northern  Profits,  as  exhibited  m 
Statistical  Pacts  and  Official  Pitres.  Pew  York,  1860. 

Lunt,  George.  The  Origin  of  the  Late  war;  Traced  from  the  Beginning  of  the  Con- 
stitution to  the  Revolt  of  the  Southern  States.  Rev/  York,  1866. 
Olmsted,  Prederick  Law.  A Journey  in  the  Seaborad  Slave  States,  with  Remarks  on 
their  Economy.  Yew  York,  1856. 

— — » A Journey  through  Texas Yew  York,  1857. 

* A Journey  in  the  Back  Country.  Yew  fork,  1861. 

— . The  Cotton  Kingdom,  a Traveller’s  Observations  oh  Cotton  and 

Slavery.  2d.  ed.  2 vols.  Yew  York,  186!  . 

Pollard,  E.  A.  The  Life  of  Jefferson  Davis,  with  a Secret  History  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  ...  Philadelphia,  1869. 

_ The  Lost  Cause;  a new  Southern  History  of  the  Tar  of  the  Confeder- 

t 

ates.  Yew  York,  1667. 

Ruffin,  Edmund.  Anticipations  of  the  Future  to  Serve  as  Lessors  for  the  Present 
Time.  Richmond,  1860. 

Russell,  Tilliam  H,  Lly  Diary  Yorth  and  South.  Boston,  1863. 

(Scott,  John).  The  Lost  Principle;  or  the  Sectional  Equilibrium;  How  it  was 

created  — how  destroyed  — how  it  may  be  restored.  By  ’’Barbarossa" 
Richmond,  1860. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.  A Const ittiional  Tiew  of  the  Late  war  Between  the  States. 

2 vols.  Philadelphia,  1868-70. 

Tucker,  Beverly.  The  Partisan  Leader.  Washington,  1836,  Yew  York,  1861. 

Van  Evrie,  Dr.  John  H.  Yegroes  and  Yegro  Slavery.  'Vewyork 1853. 

'ware,  Y.  A.  Yotes  on  Political  Economy,  as  Applicable  to  the  United  States,  by  a 
Southern  Planter.  Yew  York,  1844. 


■ • . 


. 1 


• • t 


330 


Weston,  George  M.  The  Progress  of  Slavery  in  the  United  States.  Washington,  1858. 
Wilson,  Henry.  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America.  3 vols 
Bolton.;  1872-77. 

Wolfe,  S.  M.  Helper’s  Impending  Crisis  Dissected.  Philadelphia,  1860. 

Collecti cns  of  Sources.. 

Ames,  Herman  V,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Helations.  Philadelphia,  1906. 

American  Annual  Cyclopedia  and  Register  of  Important  Events Yols. I and  II  . 
(Appleton’s  ) Hew  York,  1862  — . 

Callondar,  G.  S.  Selections  from  the  Economic  History  of  the  United  States, 
1756-1860.  Boston,  Hew  York,  1909 . 

Clusky,  Ilichael  W.  The  Political  next  3ook,  or  Encyclopedia.  Philadelphia,  1858. 
Commons,  J.  R.  et  al.  A Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society, 

Yols.  I and  II:  Plantation  and  Frontier,  edited  "by  U.  B.  Phillips. 
Cleveland,  1909 . 

DeBow,  J.D.3.  Industrial  Resources,  etc.,  of  the  Southern  and  Western  States. 

3 vols.  Hew  Orleans,  1852-53. 

Great  Dehates  in  American  History,  Yol.  Y:  State  Rights,  1798-1361,  Slavery,  1855-61 
M.  M.  Miller,  ed.  Hew  York,  1913. 

Hambleton,  Jamies  P.  A Biographical  Sketch  of  Henry  A.  Wise,  with  a History  of  the 
Political  Campaign  in  Virginia  in  1855.  Richmond,  1856. 

McPherson,  Edward.  The  Political  History  of  the  United  States  of  America  during 
the  Great  Rebellion.  3d.  ed.  Washington,  1876. 

Moore,  Frank.  The  Rebellion  Record:  A Diary  of  American  Events  with  Documents, 
narrative.  Illustrative  Indidents,  etc.,  Yols.  I and  II. 

(Put nan’s)  Hew  York. 


* 


f 


0 


f 


X I 


' 


t 


c • 


531 


Pike,  James  S.  First  Plows  of  the  Civil  Far.  The  Ten  Years  of  Preliminary  Con- 
flict in  the  United  States.  New  York,  1879. 

Poore,  3.  P.  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial  Charters  and  Other  Organic 
Laws  of  the  United  States.  .Vashington,  1877. 

Richardson,  Janies  D.  Compilation  of  the  Llessages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents, 
Vols.  III-&  . 10  vols.  Washington,  1896. 

A Compilation  of  the  llessages  and  Papers  of  the  Confederacy,  in- 
cluding the  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  1861-1865.  2 vols. 

ilashville,  1905. 

Decent  Ilo  no  graphs  and  Special  ..rtioles  and  -erks  1 

* Ambler,  Cliarles  H.  Sectionalism  in  Virginia  from  1776-1861.  Chicago,  1910. 

Thomas  Ritchie:  A Study  in  Virginia  Politics.  Richmond,  1913. 

Ballagh,  J.  C.  A History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia  (Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  studies. 

Sup.  Vol.  HXIV).  Baltimore,  1902. 

Southern  Economic  History:  Tariff  and  Public  Lands.  (Amer.  Hist. 

Assoc.,  Rapt.,  1898.] 

Bates,  William  W.  American  Navigation;  the  Political  History  cf  its  Rise  and  Ruin« 
Boston  and  New  York,  1902# 

Bogart,  E.  L.  The  Economic  History  of  the  United  States,  Hew  York,  1907. 

Bolles,  A.  3.  Industrial  History  of  the  United  States  ....  Norwich,  Conn.,  1879. 
*3oucher,  Chauncey  3.  The  nullification  Controversy  in  South  Caro  lina. 

Chicago,  1916. 

* The  Ante-Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Carolina  towards  llaauf acturers 

and  Agriculture  (V/ashlngton  Univ.  Humanistic  Studies,  Vol.  Ill, 

Pt.  II,  Ho.  2).  St.  Louis,  1916. 

/.  ITo  attempt  has  been  made  to  list  all  the  monographs  and  special  articles 
and  works  which  have  bearing  upon  the  subject,  but  only  those  are  listed  that 
have  proved  of  some  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  this  thesis.  The  most 
valuable  are  starred. . ■ — 


V 


t 


- 


. . I 

f • ' - 


V 


« '3 


t 


t ' 


• • * 


332 


Boucher,  Chauncey  S.  The  Secession  and  Co-operation  Movements  in  Couth  Carolina, 

1848  to  1852  ( Washington  Univ.  Humanistic  Studies,  Vol.  V,  Pt.  II, 
ITo.  2).  1918. 

South  Carolina  and  the  South  on  the  Eve  of  Secession,  1852-1860 

(Washington  Uni v*  Humanistic  Studies,  Vol.  71,  Pt.  II,  Ho.  2\  1919. 
Boyd,  William  K.  "North  Carolina  on  the  Eve  of  Secession,"  Amer.  Hist.  Assoc., 
Report,  1910,  pp.  167-77.  Washington,  1912. 

Brown , William  Garrott.  The  Lower  South  in  American  History.  Hew  York,  1902. 
Callahan,  James  Horton,  -he  Diplomatic  History  of  the  Southern  Confederacy, 
Baltimore,  1910, 

"The  Mexican  Policy  of  Southern  Leaders  under  Buchanan's  Adminis- 
tration," Amer.  Hist.  Assoc.,  Kept.,  1910,  pp.  135-51. 
allendar,  G.  S.  "Early  Transportation  and  Banking  Enterprises  of  the  States," 

Quar.  Jour,  of  Econ.,  XVII,  111-162.  Boston,  1902. 
lark,  Victor  S.  History  of  Manufactures  in  the  United  States,  1607-1860. 
Washington,  1916. 

Cole,  Arthur  C.  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South.  Washington,  1913. 

"The  South  and  the  Right  of  Secession  in  the  Early  Fifties," 

Hiss.  Val.  Hist.  Rev.,  I.  Cedar  Rapids,  1914. 
ollins,  ./infield  H.  The  Domestic  Slave  Trade  of  the  Southern  States.  i!ew  York, 1904 
Davis,  .-illiam  Watson,  Ante-Bellum  Southern  Commercial  Conventioiis  (Ala.  Hist.  Soc. 

Transact  ions,  V,  153-202).  Montgomery,  1904. 

5avis,  John  P.  The  Union  Pacific  Railway:  A Study  in  Railway  Politics,  History  and 
Economics.  Chicago , 1894. 
tewey,  David  R.  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  Hew  York,  1915. 
tonnell,  E.  J.  Chronological  and  Statistical  History  of  Cotton,  Hew  York,  1872. 

Cois,  W.  E.  B.  The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave  Trade  to  tlie  United  States 
of  America,  1638-1870  (Harvard  Historical  Studies,  Vol. I)  Hew 


* ' ! ■ 


• « f 


. 


, 

. , 

“■>  . 


; 


333 


York,  1896. 

Fertig,  J.  7/.  Socession  smd  Reconstruction  of  Tennessee,  Chicago,  1898. 

Ficklin,  John  Rose.  History  of  Reconstruction  in  Louisiana,  through  18G8.  (Johns 
Hopkins  LTniv.  Studies,  3eries  YXVI^. , Jo*  1j.  191  . 

Fish,  Carl  Russell.  "The  Decision  of  the  Ohio  '’’alley,'4  Arne r*  Hist.  Assoc.,  Rept., 
1910 , pp.  153-64. 

Flaaing,  "./alter  T.  'limitation  to  the  Southern  States,  -ol.  3ci.  N,uar.,  HA, 
276-297.  Hew  York,  1905. 

Garner,  Janes  W.  "The  First  Struggle  over  Secession  in  Mississippi",  Miss.  Hist. 

Soc.,  Publications,  IV.  Oxford,  Miss.,  1901. 

Hamer,  Philip  Hay.  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  1847-1852.  Allentown, 
Pa.,  1918. 

Hamilton,  J.  G.  de  R.  Reconstruction  in  Forth  Carolina  (Columbia  Univ.  Studies, 
Vol.  LVIII,  Ho.  141).  ITew  York,  1914. 

*Hammond,  M.  E.  The  Cotton  Industry:  An  Mssay  in  American  Mconomic  History,  Part  1: 
The  Cotton  Culture  and  the  Cotton  Trade.  ITew  York,  1897. 

Hearon,  Cleo.  Mississippi  and  the  Compromise  of  1850.  (lli3s.  Hist.  Soc.,  Publica- 
tions ,)  Oxford,  Miss. , 1914. 

Houston,  D.  F.  A Critical  Study  of  ITullif ication  in  South  Carolina.  (Harvard  Hist. 
Studies,  Vol.  HI).  Hew  York,  1893., 

*IngLe,  Edward.  Southern  Sidelights:  A Picture  of  Social  andPconomie  Life  in  the 
South  a generation  before  the  War.  Hew  York,  1896. 

"Two  Southern  Magazines,"  So.  Hist.  Assoc.,  Publications,  I. 

Yashin  gt  on,  1897. 

Jack,  T.  H.  Sectionalism  and  Party  Politics  in  Alabama,  1819-1842.  Henasha,  is.,’ 
1919. 

Jacobstein,  Meyer.  The  Tobacco  Industry  in  ole  United  States.  (Columbia  Univ. 


■ ■ • • 


* 


334 


Studies,  7ol.  33LY1,  Ho.  5).  1907. 

Mayes,  Edward.  Origin  of  the  Pacific  Railroads,  and  especially  of  the  Southern 

Pacific.  (Miss.  Hist.  Soc.f  Publications,  Vol.  71).  Oxford,  Miss., 
1902. 

Million,  John  U.  State  Aid  to  Railways  in  Missouri.  Chicago,  1896. 

liunford,  B.  B.  Virginia's  Attitude  toward  Slavery  and  Secession,  Mew  York,  1909. 

Pa^e,  Thomas  ITelson.  The  Old  South;  Essays  Social  and  Political,  Mew  York, 1896. 

Social  Life  in  Virginia  before  the  ar . Hew  York,  1898. 

♦Phillips,  Ulrich  3.  American  ilegro  Slavery;  a survey  of  the  supply,  employment , 

and  control  of  negro  labor  as  determined  by  the  plantation  regime. 
Hew  York,  1918. 

* Georgia  and  -tate  Rights  (Araer.  Hist.  Assoc.,  Rept.,  1901  II). 

Yashington,  1902. 

A History  of  Transportation  in  the  Eastern  Cotton  Belt  to  1860. 

Hew  York,  1908. 

"The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Southern  Black  Belts,  ’ Araer.  Mist. 

Rev.,  XI,  798-815.  Hew  York,  1906. 

"The  Economic  Cost  of  Slaveholding,"  Pol.  Sci.  -iuar.  '-■>■,  257-75. 

1905. 

Phillips,  Ulrich  3.  "The  Slave  Labor  Problem  in  the  Charleston  District,"  Pol.  Sci. 
Quar . , *311 , 416-439.  1907. 

"The  Decadence  of  the  Plantation  System,"  An.  of  the  Amer.  Acad. 

of  Pol.  and  Soc.  Sci.,  HX£V,  37-41.  Philadelphia,  1910. 

"The  Literary  Movement  for  Secession",  Studies  in  Southern  History 

and-olitics,  oh.  II.  Hew  York,  1914. 

Elams  dell,  Charles  "Tire  Prontier  and  Iccession,"  Studios  in  Southern  History  and. 
Politics,  ch.  III. 

Reed,  J.  G.  The  Brothers  ..'ar.  Boston,  1905. 


• . 


* • 


. 


: ' 


* ■ 


335 


Ring/zalt,  John  L.,  Development  of  Transportation  Systems  in  the  United  States, 
Philadelphia,  1888. 

*Sobaper,  ...  A.  Sectionalism  and  Representation  in  South  Carolina  (Amer.  Hist. 

Assoc.,  Kept.,  1900,  I).  Washington,  1901. 

* Schwab,  J,  C.  The  Confederate  States  of  America,  1861-65,  Jew  fork,  1901, 

Scott,  \Y,  A.  Repudication  of  State  Debts  ...  few  fork,  1893. 

Staawood,  Edward,  American  Tariff  Controversies  in  the  nineteenth  Century.  2 vols. 
Boston,  1903-4, 

*3tone,  A.  H.  "The  American  Pactorage  System  of  the  Southern  States,  ' Amer,  l ist. 
Rev.,  XX,  557  ff.  1914-15. 

Taussig,  Uilliam,  The  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,  Hew  York,  1914, 
Thompson,  Holland,  Prom  Cotton  Pield  to  Cotton  Mill.  A Study  of  the  Industrial 
Transition  in  Perth  Carolina.  Hew  York,  1906. 

*Trexler , H.  .i.  Slavery  in  Missouri,  1804-1865.  (Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies, 
Series  'YXI I,  Ho.  2).  1914. 

'.‘agstaff,  H.  M.  State  Rights  and  Political  Parties  in  ITorth  Carolina,  1776-1861 
(Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies,  Series  XXIV) . 1906. 
weaver,  C.  C.  Internal  Improvements  in  north  Carolina  previous  to  1860  (Johns 
Hopkins  Univ.  Studies,  Series  XXI,  Uos.  Ill  and  IV).  1903. 

Bio  era:  Ail  j s and  Bioarauhical  Sketches. 

Bassett,  John  3,  The  Life  of  Andre?/  Jackson,  2 vols.  Hew  York,  1911. 

Butler,  Pierce.  Judah  P.  Benjamin.  Philadelphia.  1907. 

Caldwell,  J.  <7.  ’’John  Bell  of  Tennessee" , Amer.  Hist.  Rev.  IV,  651-64.  1399. 

3olton,  Calvin.  The  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Clay,  2 vols.  Hew  York,  1846. 

Davis,  Mrs.  Varina  II.  Jefferson  Davis,  Bx -President  of  the  Confederate  States  : 
a Memoir.  2 vols.  Hew  York,  1890. 

D//(,Xs.  L lit  St*  ty  oi  C.mm.rPi.  r Jauv.  tf-  Am&r.  li£  , -r  >'7- $$ 

Dodd,  . illiam  P . Jefferson  Davis.  Philadelphia,  1907. 


? * 


* 


• r 


■ 


> 


* 


; 


•5 


f 


* 


* ~ 


« 


236 


DuBose,  j.  77.  Life  and  Times  of  77.  L.  Yancey.  Birmingham,  1892. 

Ellis,  H.  G.  Edmund  Ruffin,  His  Life  and  Times  (Branch  Historical  Papers,  7ol.HI, 
100-23)  • Richmond,  1903. 

Ilall,  Clifton  R.  Andrew  Johnson,  Military  Governor  of  Tennessee,  London,  1916. 
Hunt , Cai  .lard.  John  C.  Calhoun.  Philadelphia,  1908. 

Jervey,  Theodore.  Robert  7.  Hayne  and  his  Tines.  Hew  York,  1909. 

Mayes,  Edward.  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar:  his  Life,  Tiraasyand  Speeches,  1825-1893. 
Hashville,  1896. 

Phillips , Ulrich  3.  The  Life  cf  Robert  Toombs.  Hew  York,  1913. 

Stovall,  P.  A.  Robert  Toombs:  Statesman,  Speaker,  Soldier,  Sage.  Hew  Tori;,  1392. 
Trent,  77.  P.  7/ill  iam  Gilmore  Simms.  Boston  and  Hew  York,  1892. 

Southern  Statesmen  of  the  Old  Regime.  Hew  -ork,  1897'. 

Theeler , John  H«  Reminiscences  and  Memoirs  of  Uorth  Carolina  and  Eminent  north 
Carolinians.  Columbus,  1884. 

tfise.  Barton  H.  Life  of  Henry  A.  7/ise,  Hew  York,  1899. 

% 

State  and  Local  Histories. 

ivery,  Isaac.  The  History  of  the  State  of  Ceorgia  from  1850  to  1881;  

Hew  York,  1881. 

3rown,  111  iam  G.  A History  of  Alabama.  Hew  ’"crk,  1900. 

Jurton,  H.  7.  The  History  of  ITorfolk.  Uorfolk,  1877. 

Jable,  George  77.  History  and  Present  Condition  o f Hew  Orleans  (Tenth  Census,  HLX, 
Pt.  II,  213-95), 

Garr,  Lucien,  Missouri,  A Bone  of  Contention  (African  Commonwealths  series). 
Boston,  1888. 

3ordoza,  J.  IT.  Reminiscences  of  Charleston.  Charleston,  1846. 

j’orrest,  7 Gilliam  S.  Historical  and  Descriptive  Sketches  of  ITorfolk  and  Vicinity  ... 
Phi  1 ode  Ip hia , 1853. 


• » 

# * 

. 

* 

1 4 

9 9 

a 

* 

■ • 9 

* 

. 

' * 

* 3 * 

. 

•*  V 

9 

• 

• 

* 

i 


. 

* 


357 


Fortier,  Alc£e,  The  History  of  Louisiana,  Vol.  IV.,  4 vols.  Hew  'fork,  190'. 
Garrison,  George  P.  Texas  (American  Commonwealths  series).  3oston,  1903. 

Gayarr&,  diaries,  History  of  Louisiana,  Vol.  IV,  The  American  Domination.  4 vols. 
Hew  Orleans,  1903, 

Hamilton,  Peter  J.  Mobile  of  the  Fire  Flags,  the  Story  of  the  River  3asin  and 
Coast  about  Mobile  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Present, 

Boston,  1913. 

tlowison,  Robert  R,  A History  of  Virginia  from  Its  Discovery  and  Settlement  by 
Europeans  to  the  Present  Time.  2 vols.  Philadelphia,  1848. 

Ic  Elroy,  R.  M.  Kentucky  in  the  Ration's  History.  Hew  York,  1909. 
ibore,  J.  K.  History  of  Horth  Carolina,  2 vols.  1880. 

Rowland,  Dunbar,  ed.  Encyclopedia  o f Mississippi  History.  2 vols.  Madison,  1907. 
Ghaler,  IT.  3.  Kentucky  (American  Commonwealths  series).  Boston,  188  5. 

General  Histories 

Of  the  many  general  histories  covering  the  period,  the  following  have 
especially  valuable  chapters  o t sections  dealing  with  topics  discussed  in  this  thesis 

Che  American  Ration:  A History,  A.  B.  Hart,  ed.  27  vols.  Hew  York,  1906—. 

Vol.  16,  Hart,  A.  B.,  Abolition  and  Slavery,  especially,  chs.  I - X. 

Vol.  17,  Garrison,  George  ?.,  Eastward  Extension,  ch.  XII. 

Vol.  18,  Smith,  T.  C.,  Parties  and  Slavery,  chs.  IV,  V,  XIII,  XIX,  XX. 

Vol.  19,  Chadwick,  F.  E. , Causes  of  the  Civil  war , chs.  I-IV,  IX. 

Fhe  Chronicles  of  American  Series,  Allen  Johnson,  ed.  50  vols.  Hew  Haven,  1913—. 

Vol.  24,  Stephenson,  IT.  V/.,  Texas  and  the  Mexican  Ear,  especially  ch.EX. 
Vol.  27,  Dodd,  'Killian  E.,  The  Cotton  Kingdom. 

Vol.  29,  Stephenson,  ,.,  Abraham  Lincoln  and  the  Union,  especially  chs. 


I -VI 


. , ♦ ••  , 


f 


* 


- 


e 


* 


f 


r 


* 


f 


> 


?! 


♦ 


. 


• ’ f 


. 


9 


i 


» • • 


338 


Yol.  30,  Stephenson,  IT.  '.7. , The  Day  of  the  Confederacy,  especially 
chs.  I-lV. 

)odd,  V.r.  E.  Expansion  and  Conflict,  chs.  YII-XIV  (Yol.  Ill  of  the  Riverside  History 
of  the  United  States).  Boston,  1915. 

•Iolst,  Herman  E.  von.  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United  States, 

especially  Yol.  I,  chs,  9,  10}  Yol.  Ill,  ch.  17;  Yol.  YII,  chs.  7,8. 
8 vols.  Chicago,  1877-92. 

ScMaster,  John  B.  A History  of  the  People  of  the  United'  States,  Yols.  YII  and  YIII, 
nassim.  8 vols.  Hew  York,  1888-1913. 

Ihcdes,  Janes  Ford.  History  of  the  United  States  from  tine  Compromise  of  1850,  es- 
pecially Yol.  I,  chs.  1,  4;  Yol.  II,  chs.  12-15;  Yol.  III.  7 vols.- 
ITew  York,  1896-1906. 

Hhe  South  in  the  3uilding’  of  the  ITation,  hy  J.  A.  C.  Chandler,  et  al.  Yols.  I-Y, 
especially  Yol.  IY,  ?t.  Ill,  ch.  II.  Richmond,  1909-13. 

ihorpe,  Francis  Uewton.  The  Civil  7/ar:  The  national  Yiew,  chs.  I-IY  (Yol.  HY  of  the 
History  of  ITorth  America,  Guy  Ccrleton  Lee,  ed.).  Philadelphia,  1906. 


339 

TABLE  I. 


COI.ICRCR  OF  TIE!  PRETCIPAL  AI.CRICAIT  CCLOKIRS  AtID  COIEtERCIAL  STATES . 1760-1860, 1 


Year 

llev/  England 

ITew  York 

Pennsylvania 

Maryland  and  Virginia 

Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Louisiana 

1760  (frorts 
( -imports 

599,647 

37.802 

480,106 

21.125 

707,998 

22.754 

605,882 

504.451 

213,131 

162.769 

12.198 

; 

. 

1774  (reports 
( Imports 

562,476 

112.248 

437,937 

60.008 

625,652 
__  . 69.611  _ 

523,  738 
612,030 

378,116 

432.302 

57,518 

67.647 

1791  Sports 

Massachusetts 

$2,505,465 

$3,436,093 

Maryland  • Virginia... 

South  Carolina 

491.250 

>62.519 .651 

>,^2.239 .691  ? $0,130,865 

$2,693,268 

1600  Reports 

11.326.876 

14.045.079 

11.949.679 

12.264.331  • 4,430.689 

10.633.510 

2.174.268 

1610  Exports 

13.013.048 

17.242.330 

10.993.398 

6.469.018  • 4,822,611 

5.290,614 

2.2 38.686 

1.890.592 

Imports 
l6<il  (imports 

12,484,691 

14.876.732 

13,162,917 

23.629.246 

7,391,767 

8.158.922 

3,850,394  ; 3,079,209 

4.070.842  . 1,078.490 

7,200,511 

3.007.113 

6,014,310 

1.002.684 

$108,960 

2,272,172 

3.379.717 

1830  ‘f^R1 * 3 

( Lmports 

7,213,194 

10.453.544 

19,697,983 

35.627.070 

4,291,793 

8.702.122 

3,791,482  ; 4,791,644 

4.523.866  . 405.739 

7,627,031 

1.054.619 

5,336,626 

282.346 

2,294,594 

144.823 

15,488,692 

7.599,083 

1840  (Exports 
( Imports 

10,186,261 

16.513.858 

34,264,080 

60.440.750 

6,820,080 

8.469.882 

5,768,768  : 4,778,220 

4.910.746  : 545.085 

10 ,036,769 
2.058.870 

6,862,955 

491.428 

12,854,690 

574.651 

34,236,936 

10.673.690 

1845  (Exports 
( Lmports 

10,351,030 

12.781.024 

36,175,298 

70.909.085 

3,574,363 

8.159.227 

5,221,977  : 2,104,581 

3.741.804  : 230,470 

8,890,648 

1.143.158 

4,557,435 

206.301 

10,538,228 

473.491 

27,157,495 

9.354.397 

1850  (Exports 

(Imports 

10,681,763 

30.374.684 

52,712,789 

111.123.524 

4,501,606 

12.066.154 

6,967,353  : 3,415,646 

6.124.201  : 426,599 

11,447,800 

1.933.785 

7,551,943 

636.964 

10,544,858 

865.964 

38,105,350 

10.760.499 

1855  l^xports 
( Laports 

28,190,925 

45.113.774 

113,731,238 

164.776.511 

6,274,338 
15.309  .935 

10,395,984  : 4,379,928 

7.788.949  : 855.405 

12,700,250 

1.588.542 

7,543,519 

273.716 

14,270,665 

619.964 

55,367,862 

12.900.821 

i860  (Exports 
(Imports 

17,003,277 

41.187.539 

145,555,444 

248.489.877 

5,628,327 

14.634.279 

9,001,600  : 5,858,024 

9.784.723  : 1,569.570 

21,205,337 

1.569.570 

18,483,038 

782.066 

38,670,183 

1.050.310 

108,417,798 

22.922.773 

1.  De3ot7,  Compendium  of  the  3 event  h Census.  104,186-7;  Register 

of  tne  Treasury,  Commerce  ana  Havi/s-ticn.  1855,  p.  330;  1860, 

p*  552. 


340 


TABLE  II 

POPULATION  OF  HUE  5CAP0RT3  AT  TBIT  TEAR  E1TERVAL3.  1890-1860 


Seaport 

1790 

1800 

1010 

1820 

1830 

1810 

1050 

1860 

• 

3oston 

18,038 

24,937 

33,350 

43,298 

61,392 

93.383 

136.881 

177,812 

lev/  York 

33.131 

60.439 

96.373 

123.706 

202.589 

312.710 

515.547 

803.653 

Philadelphia 

42.520 

69.403 

91.874 

112.722 

1.61, 410 

220.423 

340.045 

585,529 

Baltimore 

13.503 

26.114 

35.583 

62.738 

80.625 

102.313 

169.054 

212,418 

Richmond 

3.761 

5.737 

9.735 

12.067 

16.060 

20.153 

27.570 

37.910 

lor  folic 

6 .916 

9.193 

8.478 

9.014 

10.920 

14.526 

14.6-0 

Charleston 

16.359 

20.473 

24.711 

24.780 

30.289 

29 .261 

42.985 

40.578 

3av  annah 

5.166 

5.215 

7.523 

7.776 

11.214 

15.312 

22.292 

[ohila 

(21 

1.468 

1.500 

. 5.194 

12.672 

20.515 

29.258 

Orleans 

* 

0 « 

qMI 

17.242 

27.176 

46.310 

102.193 

116.375 

168.675 

1*  J^venth  Census,  -apne ndix , lii;  Eighth  Census,  Co  alaticn. 

Intro  du  obi  on,  pass  La. 

2%  1788.  >3.  1797. 


341 

TABLE  III 

REGISTERED  AuD  EITROLLED  M3  LICENSED  TOL-GE  IN  STATE.  AID  DISTRICTS  OF 

THE  UNITED  STATES . 1793  - 1860." 

STATE 

1793 

1810 

CITY 

1837 

1850 

1860 

U) 

(Registered 
Mass.  (Enrolled!  I) 

135,599 

51.402 

352,806 

107.260 

Boston 

127,955 

73.049 

270,510 

50.177 

411,410 

52,802 

(Registered 

K e w Y ork  ( Enr o lied 

45,355 

13.986 

168,556 

83.536 

Hew  York 

191,322 

219,549 

441,336 

594,230 

838,449 

625,551 

(Registered 

Pa.  (Enrolled 

60,92^ 

4.579 

109,628 

14.255 

Philadelphia 

039,156 

642.592 

64,205 

142.292 

67,094 

174,642 

(Registered 

I'd.  (Enrolled 

26,792 

9.512 

90,045 

46.247 

Baltimore 

34,954 

32.153 

90,669 

58.349 

114,185 

85.923 

(Registered 

7a#  (Enrolled 

23,997 

12.093 

45,339 

51.234 

Norfolk 

1,864 

10.857 

10,542 

13.592 

10,452 

15,954 

(Registered 

J.  C.  (Enrolled 

10,167 

2.764 

26,472 

10.562 

Wilmington 

6,551 

2,088 

9,123 

6.074 

13,372 

10,535 

(Registered 

3.  C.  (Enrolled 

12,998 

2.058 

43,354 

9.449 

Charle  ston 

8,226 

12,957 

15,377 

17.915 

38,490 

26,934 

(Registered 

Ga#  (Enrolled 

1,568 

233 

12,405 

3,107 

Savannah 

6,493 

10,437 

9,293 

. 27,560 
12,280 

(Registered 

(Enrolled 

Motile 

2,733 

7,585 

7, '103 
16,753 

22,442 

30,514 

(Registered 

Orleans  Ty.  (Enrolled 

11,386 

1.326 

New  Orleans 

31,383 

60,992 

86,668 

165.040 

132,199 

96,043 

1.  Timothv  Pitkin.  Statistical  View  of  the  Commerce  of  the 

United  States,  on.  397  ff.:  Commerce  and  ITavi Ration, 
1338,  p.  308:  1850,  Statement  No.  15:  1860.  p#  658. 

2.  Engaged  In  the  foreigi  trade. 

3.  Including  licensed.  Engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade,  etc. 

* 


■ . 

5 

( 

. 


t 


t • 
.? 


? 

t 


• ' c 


: 7 


« 


* 


e 


■ 


1 r 


• 1 


. 

o • 


VITA 


Robert  R.  Russel  was  born  on  a farm  near  Galva,  Kansas, 
September  27,  1890.  He  attended  rural  school  and  later  a two  years' 
high  school  in  a near-by  town.  In  1906  he  entered  the  Academy  De- 
partment of  McPherson  College,  McPhe  -son,  Kansas;  he  received  his  A.B. 
from  that  institution  in  1914.  The  summer  of  1914  and  year  1914-15  he 
did  graduate  ”'ork  in  the  University  of  Kansas,  receiving  the  M.  A* 
degree  in  June.  The  subject  of  his  thesis  was  "Early  Projects  for  a 
Railroad  to  the  Pacific”.  The  two  following  years  he  did  graduate 
work  in  the  Unlvasity  of  Illinois.  He  held  fellowships  in  history 
during  the  three  years  of  graduate  study.  He  was  elected  a member  of 
the  Illinois  Chgpter  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  1917.  Before  graduation  from 
college  he  taught  three  years  in  the  grades  and  in  high  school.  For  two 
quarters,  1919,  he  was  Assistant  in  History  in  the  University  of 
Illinois.  For  three  years  he  has  been  Professor  of  History  in  Ottawa 
University,  Ottawa,  Kusas.  During  the  War  he  served  fifteen  months 
in  the  United  States  Army.  He  has  written  nothing  worth  mentioning 
for  publication. 


«-V;> 


